DCIT CIRCLE-4, LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA vs. ROCKMAN INDUSTRIES LTD, LUDHIANA

In the result order of CIT(A) is sustained as passed and the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

disallowable =Rs.85,00,000+ Rs.11,22,04,500 Rs.12,07,04,500/- Therefore, an amount of Rs.12,07,04,500/- is being added to the income of the assessee. Hence, I am satisfied that the assessee company has under reported income is in consequence of any misreported thereof for which the penalty provisions of section 270A

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, AAYAKAR BHAWAN vs. ROCKMAN INDUSTRIES LIMITED, -

In the result order of CIT(A) is sustained as passed and the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

disallowable =Rs.85,00,000+ Rs.11,22,04,500 Rs.12,07,04,500/- Therefore, an amount of Rs.12,07,04,500/- is being added to the income of the assessee. Hence, I am satisfied that the assessee company has under reported income is in consequence of any misreported thereof for which the penalty provisions of section 270A

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, LUDHIANA, - vs. ROCKMAN INDUSTRIES LTD, -

In the result order of CIT(A) is sustained as passed and the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

disallowable =Rs.85,00,000+ Rs.11,22,04,500 Rs.12,07,04,500/- Therefore, an amount of Rs.12,07,04,500/- is being added to the income of the assessee. Hence, I am satisfied that the assessee company has under reported income is in consequence of any misreported thereof for which the penalty provisions of section 270A

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4,, AAYAKAR BHAWAN vs. ROCKMAN INDUSTRIES LIMITED, -

In the result order of CIT(A) is sustained as passed and the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

disallowable =Rs.85,00,000+ Rs.11,22,04,500 Rs.12,07,04,500/- Therefore, an amount of Rs.12,07,04,500/- is being added to the income of the assessee. Hence, I am satisfied that the assessee company has under reported income is in consequence of any misreported thereof for which the penalty provisions of section 270A

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, , AAYAKAR BHAWAN vs. ROCKMAN INDUSTRIES LIMITED, -

In the result order of CIT(A) is sustained as passed and the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

disallowable =Rs.85,00,000+ Rs.11,22,04,500 Rs.12,07,04,500/- Therefore, an amount of Rs.12,07,04,500/- is being added to the income of the assessee. Hence, I am satisfied that the assessee company has under reported income is in consequence of any misreported thereof for which the penalty provisions of section 270A

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, AAYAKAR BHAWAN vs. ROCKMAN INDUSTRIES LIMITED, -

In the result order of CIT(A) is sustained as passed and the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

disallowable =Rs.85,00,000+ Rs.11,22,04,500 Rs.12,07,04,500/- Therefore, an amount of Rs.12,07,04,500/- is being added to the income of the assessee. Hence, I am satisfied that the assessee company has under reported income is in consequence of any misreported thereof for which the penalty provisions of section 270A

VARDHMAN TEXTILES LTD.,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, LUDHIANA

Bench: This Tribunal. The Assessee Is Aggrieved By The Order Bearing No. Itba/Apl/S/250/2023-

disallowed by virtue of provision contained in Section 36(1)(va) of the Act which pertained to sum received from employees as contribution to provided Fund, ESI etc. 2.2 That assessee being aggrieved by the aforesaid intimation order dated 27.10.2020 preferred first appeal under Section 246A

SH RAMESH KUMAR DUDANI,MOHALI vs. DCIT,CIRCLE -6(1), MOHALI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

246A(q) is not applicable where request for rectification has been made under Section 154 of the Act. 5. That the appellant reserves the right to add, amend or delete one or more of the grounds of appeal before the appeal is disposed off. 3. Ground No. 2 was not pressed, therefore, the same is dismissed as not pressed

SMT. SHWETA JAIN,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-1, LUDHIANA

In the result, all the above appeals of different assessees are partly allowed for statistical purposes

246A would not have been provided for by the Legislature against the order of penalty passed u/s 271AAB of the Act. We also note that while enacting Section 271AAB the Legislature has consciously used the word ‘may’ in contradistinction to the word ‘shall’ in the opening words of Section 271AAB of the Act. The choice of the expression

M/S MAHARAJA LIGHT & TENT SERVICES,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-1, LUDHIANA

In the result, all the above appeals of different assessees are partly allowed for statistical purposes

246A would not have been provided for by the Legislature against the order of penalty passed u/s 271AAB of the Act. We also note that while enacting Section 271AAB the Legislature has consciously used the word ‘may’ in contradistinction to the word ‘shall’ in the opening words of Section 271AAB of the Act. The choice of the expression

SMT. VANI JAIN,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-1, LUDHIANA

In the result, all the above appeals of different assessees are partly allowed for statistical purposes

246A would not have been provided for by the Legislature against the order of penalty passed u/s 271AAB of the Act. We also note that while enacting Section 271AAB the Legislature has consciously used the word ‘may’ in contradistinction to the word ‘shall’ in the opening words of Section 271AAB of the Act. The choice of the expression

FARID EDUCATIONAL SOCIAL WELFARE AND CHARITABLE SOCIETY,NEW SHASTRI NAGAR vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BENGALURU

Bench: This Hon'Ble

246A of the Act and Addl. CIT(A) however has dismissed the appeal by impugned order. 2.8 The Addl. CIT(A) in the impugned order has held as under : “6.1.3 In this regard, the appellant mentioned that the Provisional Registration Number was inadvertently mentioned as ITA 608/CHD/2024 A.Y. 2022-23 4 AAAAAF1283DE20219 as against the correct Provisional Registration Number

M/S SEL TEXTILES LIMITED,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-III, LUDHIANA

In the result, theappeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.695/Chd/2018 धििागरणवर्ग / Assessment Year :2014-15 बिाम M/S Sel Textiles Limited, The Dcit, 273-74,G.T. Road, Central Circle-Iii, Dhandari Kalan, Ludhiana Ludhiana स्थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Aancs0401M अपीलाथी/Appellant प्रत्यथी/Respondent धििागररतीकीओरसे/Assessee By : Shri Ashwani Kumar, Ca राजस्वकीओरसे/ Revenue By : Sh. Ram Mohan, Cit Dr सुिवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28.01.2019 उदघोर्णाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 18.04.2019 आदेश/Order Per Sanjay Garg:

246A would not have been provided for by the Legislature against the order of penalty passed u/s 271AAB of the Act. We also note that while enacting Section 271AAB the Legislature has consciously used the word ‘may’ in contradistinction to the word ‘shall’ in the opening words of Section 271AAB of the Act. The choice of the expression

DESH MITTER GAIND,PANCHKULA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, PANCHKULA, PANCHKULA, HARYANA

Bench: This Tribunal. The Assessee Is Aggrieved By The Order Of Cit(A) Bearing No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-

disallowances made are discussed as under:- ITA 454/CHD/2023 A.Y. 2011-12 4 From the perusal of sale deed, it was noticed that (i) the assessee had sold a residential property bearing No. 595, Sector 6, Panchkula for a consideration of Rs.2,42.00,000/- whereas the value of stamp duty was assessed by the valuation authority on the value of Rs.3

MOHAMMAD MUSHTAQ,PANCHKULA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE, PANCHKULA

Bench: This Tribunal. The Assessee Is Aggrieved By The Order Bearing No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-

disallowed agriculture income of Rs.46,68,628/-. 2.8 That the assessee being aggrieved by the aforesaid assessment order dated 07.12.2019 had preferred first appeal in terms of Section 246A

JINDAL PADDING PRIVATE LIMITED,VILLAGE MANNPURA, TEHSIL NALAG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER PARWANO, PARWANO

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

246A and the ld. CIT(A) by impugned order has sustained the order of ld. AO imposing the penalty. 2. The assessee being aggrieved by the impugned order has preferred an appeal before this Tribunal and has raised following grounds of appeal before us : “1. That the order passed under section 250 of the income tax act by the learned

AKM RESORTS,MOHALI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 5(1), CHANDIGARH

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: This Tribunal. The Assessee

disallowed and also was asked as to why the office should not accept the fact that M/s AKM Resorts willingly wanted to peg their net profit rate at 24.50%. 3.6 The assessee did not reply by the given date of 07/12/2018. Taking into consideration, the earlier reply of the assessee and the further opportunity provided to the assessee which

AL RASHEED CHARITABLE SOCIETY,JAGADHARI vs. DCIT EXEMPTIONS, CIRCLE-2, CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: This Tribunal. The Relevant Ay Is 2016-17 & Corresponding Previous Year Period Is From 01/04/2015 To 31/03/2016. The Assessee Is Aggrieved By Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023- 24/1054712149(1) 28/07/2023 Passed By Ld. Cit(A) Under Section 250 Of The Act, Which Is Hereinafter Referred To As The Impugned Order.

Disallowance of depreciation claimed by the assessee amounting to Rs. 3,34,759/-. 3. The aforesaid assessment order of Ld. AO bears no. ITBA/AST/S/143(3)/2018-19/1014465877(1) dt. 21/12/2018. 4. That the assessee being aggrieved by the aforesaid assessment order dt. 21/12/2018 preferred fist appeal under section 246A