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

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, LUDHIANA, 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

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

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

KULDEEP SINGH,SAS NAGAR, PUNJAB vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(5), CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

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

disallow expenditure proportionately out of agricultural income and your agricultural income will be reduced and treated as income from other source. You are once again requested to furnish detail of expenditure with documentary evidence as requisitioned vide questionnaire dated 26.8.2019 along with bills and vouchers". 8. That In response to this the assessee furnished reply dated 4.11.2019 which

AL RASHEED CHARITABLE SOCIETY,HARYANA vs. JCIT, EXEMPTIONS, CHANDIGARH

Appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

246A of the Act\nwhich is hereinafter referred to as the “impugned order”. The relevant A.Y\nis 2016-17 and the corresponding previous year period is from 01/04/2015\nto 31/03/2016.\n2.\nFactual Matrix\n2.1\nThe Return of Income for the A.Y.2016-17 was filed by the assessee\non 11.10.2016 at Nil income and the same was processed under section\n143

SURESH KUMAR YOGINDER KUMAR, TIMBER MARKET 2692-1-2 ,AMBALA CANTT vs. NFAC DELHI JURISDITIONAL OFFICER ITO WARD 4 AMBALA, AMBALA

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

disallowed. A draft assessment order\nwas sent on 15/4/2021 proposing the above addition and to file his reply latest by\n19/4/2021. But it is seen that the assessee has not filed any reply till the date of\nfinalization of the assessment order, hence, it is presumed that the assessee has nothing\nto say in the matter and has agreed

KELLEY STEEL CORPORATION,MANDI GOBINDGARH vs. ITO, WARD-2, MANDI GOBINDGARH

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

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Paresh M. Joshiआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 869/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22 Kelly Steel Corporation, Vs. The Ito, बनाम 1, Gt Road, Ward-2, Mandi Gobindgarh Mandi Gobindgarh 147301 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aabfk1479L अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent ( Hybrid Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Parkishit Aggarwal, Ca राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Rohit Sharma, Cit Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 30.01.2025 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28.02.2025 आदेश/Order Per Paresh M. Joshi, Jm :

section 253 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [ herein referred to as the Act – for the sake of convenience and ease] before the Tribunal. The Assessee is aggrieved by the order bearing number: ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024- 869-Chd-2024 Kelly Steel Corporation, Mandi Gobindgarh 2 25-/1065869634(1) dated 20.06.2024 of CIT(A) which is hereinafter referred to as the “impugned order