DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. PARAMJIT SINGH, MOHALI

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

32 Disclosure Scheme’ and to get their income into rotation / accounted for by paying 30% tax and declaring the same under the aforesaid sections in the return of income yet, the Government still has not come with the penalty provisions in respect of such voluntarily declared income in the return of income, rather has chosen to enhance the tax rate

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. JASWANT KAUR, MOHALI

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

32 Disclosure Scheme’ and to get their income into rotation / accounted for by paying 30% tax and declaring the same under the aforesaid sections in the return of income yet, the Government still has not come with the penalty provisions in respect of such voluntarily declared income in the return of income, rather has chosen to enhance the tax rate

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. KULWANT SINGH, MOHALI

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

32 Disclosure Scheme’ and to get their income into rotation / accounted for by paying 30% tax and declaring the same under the aforesaid sections in the return of income yet, the Government still has not come with the penalty provisions in respect of such voluntarily declared income in the return of income, rather has chosen to enhance the tax rate

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. KULWANT SINGH, MOHALI

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

32 Disclosure Scheme’ and to get their income into rotation / accounted for by paying 30% tax and declaring the same under the aforesaid sections in the return of income yet, the Government still has not come with the penalty provisions in respect of such voluntarily declared income in the return of income, rather has chosen to enhance the tax rate

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. MANJIT KAUR, CHANDIGARH

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

32 Disclosure Scheme’ and to get their income into rotation / accounted for by paying 30% tax and declaring the same under the aforesaid sections in the return of income yet, the Government still has not come with the penalty provisions in respect of such voluntarily declared income in the return of income, rather has chosen to enhance the tax rate

DCIT, C-V, LUDHIANA vs. M/S HERO CYCLES LTD., LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 588/Chd/2018 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2012-13 The DCIT C-V, Ludhiana बनाम M/s Hero Cycles Ltd. Hero Nagar, G.T. Road Ludhiana स्थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AAACH4073P अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 473/Chd/2018 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2012-13 M/s Hero Cycles Ltd. Hero Nagar, G.T. Road Ludhiana बनाम The ACIT C-V, Ludhiana स्थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AAACH4073P

32,09,28,068+2,34,36,86,413)/2 Rs. 1,83,23,07,240 Disallowance @ 0.5% Rs. 91,61,536/- as against Rs. 2,94,48,717/- suo- moto disallowed made by assessee. The appellant is entitled to the following relief:- i) Suo-moto disallowance made under rule 8D(2)(ii) Rs. 1

SH. VIJAY KUMAR SINGH,BADDI vs. ITO , BADDI

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 18/Chd/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2019-20 Dcit, Central Circle, Smt. Madhubala बनाम Patiala W/O Sh. Krishan Gopal, Ward No.1, Lehargaga, Punjab "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Anjpb7890D अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

disallowed for once and all if payment is delayed beyond the prescribed time. 1(b) That the Ld.CIT(A) erred in ignoring and failing to take into account the amendment carried out by Finance Act, 2021 by way of inserting Explanation 1 & Explanation 2 below section 36(l)(va) of the Act which has been interpreted

VIDYADHAR TIWARI,BADDI vs. ITO, , BADDI

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 18/Chd/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2019-20 Dcit, Central Circle, Smt. Madhubala बनाम Patiala W/O Sh. Krishan Gopal, Ward No.1, Lehargaga, Punjab "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Anjpb7890D अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

disallowed for once and all if payment is delayed beyond the prescribed time. 1(b) That the Ld.CIT(A) erred in ignoring and failing to take into account the amendment carried out by Finance Act, 2021 by way of inserting Explanation 1 & Explanation 2 below section 36(l)(va) of the Act which has been interpreted

PARMINDER SINGH,LUDHIANA vs. ITO, LUDHIANA

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 18/Chd/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2019-20 Dcit, Central Circle, Smt. Madhubala बनाम Patiala W/O Sh. Krishan Gopal, Ward No.1, Lehargaga, Punjab "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Anjpb7890D अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

disallowed for once and all if payment is delayed beyond the prescribed time. 1(b) That the Ld.CIT(A) erred in ignoring and failing to take into account the amendment carried out by Finance Act, 2021 by way of inserting Explanation 1 & Explanation 2 below section 36(l)(va) of the Act which has been interpreted

SH. VIJAY KUMAR SINGH,BADDI vs. ITO , BADDI

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 18/Chd/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2019-20 Dcit, Central Circle, Smt. Madhubala बनाम Patiala W/O Sh. Krishan Gopal, Ward No.1, Lehargaga, Punjab "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Anjpb7890D अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

disallowed for once and all if payment is delayed beyond the prescribed time. 1(b) That the Ld.CIT(A) erred in ignoring and failing to take into account the amendment carried out by Finance Act, 2021 by way of inserting Explanation 1 & Explanation 2 below section 36(l)(va) of the Act which has been interpreted

RIDE LINK AUTO,LUDHIANA vs. ITO WARD 7 (1), LUDHIANA

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 18/Chd/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2019-20 Dcit, Central Circle, Smt. Madhubala बनाम Patiala W/O Sh. Krishan Gopal, Ward No.1, Lehargaga, Punjab "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Anjpb7890D अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

disallowed for once and all if payment is delayed beyond the prescribed time. 1(b) That the Ld.CIT(A) erred in ignoring and failing to take into account the amendment carried out by Finance Act, 2021 by way of inserting Explanation 1 & Explanation 2 below section 36(l)(va) of the Act which has been interpreted

ITO, WARD 6(1), LUDHIANA vs. SH. SITA RAM SINGLA, LUDHIANA

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 18/Chd/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2019-20 Dcit, Central Circle, Smt. Madhubala बनाम Patiala W/O Sh. Krishan Gopal, Ward No.1, Lehargaga, Punjab "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Anjpb7890D अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

disallowed for once and all if payment is delayed beyond the prescribed time. 1(b) That the Ld.CIT(A) erred in ignoring and failing to take into account the amendment carried out by Finance Act, 2021 by way of inserting Explanation 1 & Explanation 2 below section 36(l)(va) of the Act which has been interpreted

TEGSONS INDIA,LUDHIANA vs. ITO, WARD 1(3), LUDHIANA

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 18/Chd/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2019-20 Dcit, Central Circle, Smt. Madhubala बनाम Patiala W/O Sh. Krishan Gopal, Ward No.1, Lehargaga, Punjab "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Anjpb7890D अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

disallowed for once and all if payment is delayed beyond the prescribed time. 1(b) That the Ld.CIT(A) erred in ignoring and failing to take into account the amendment carried out by Finance Act, 2021 by way of inserting Explanation 1 & Explanation 2 below section 36(l)(va) of the Act which has been interpreted

SANDEEP GUPTA,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 3(1),, CHANDIGARH

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 18/Chd/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2019-20 Dcit, Central Circle, Smt. Madhubala बनाम Patiala W/O Sh. Krishan Gopal, Ward No.1, Lehargaga, Punjab "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Anjpb7890D अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

disallowed for once and all if payment is delayed beyond the prescribed time. 1(b) That the Ld.CIT(A) erred in ignoring and failing to take into account the amendment carried out by Finance Act, 2021 by way of inserting Explanation 1 & Explanation 2 below section 36(l)(va) of the Act which has been interpreted

METALMAN AUTO PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE -1,, LUDHIANA

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 18/Chd/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2019-20 Dcit, Central Circle, Smt. Madhubala बनाम Patiala W/O Sh. Krishan Gopal, Ward No.1, Lehargaga, Punjab "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Anjpb7890D अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

disallowed for once and all if payment is delayed beyond the prescribed time. 1(b) That the Ld.CIT(A) erred in ignoring and failing to take into account the amendment carried out by Finance Act, 2021 by way of inserting Explanation 1 & Explanation 2 below section 36(l)(va) of the Act which has been interpreted

ARYANS EDUCATIONAL AND CHARITABLE TRUST REGD, MOHALI,MOHALI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, EXEMPTIONS, CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1136/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2025-26 Aryans Educational & The Cit (Exemptions), Charitable Trust, Regd.Mohali Vs Chandigarh, C/O Shri Tej Mohan Singh, Advocate, # 527, Sector 10-D, Chandigarh. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aabta7550L अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Tej Mohan Singh, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Manav Bansal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 07.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.09.2025

1) of section 12AA, as the case may be, and subsequently, (a) the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner has noticed occurrence of one or more specified violations during any previous year; or b) the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner has received a reference from the Assessing Officer under the second proviso to sub-section (3) of section 143 for an: previous year

DCIT, CIRCLE, YAMUNANAGAR vs. M/S SYMBIOSIS PHARMACEUTICALS PVT. LTD., YAMUNANAGAR

In the result, appeal is dismissed

Bench: The Due Date As Prescribed In Section 139(1) Of The I.T. Act, 1961 Whereas The Assessee Has Filed Its Return Of Income After The Due Date.

disallowance of deduction claimed u/s 80IC, for assessment year 2013-14. 8.3 Finding that the facts for the year under consideration on this issue are exactly in pari materia with those having a reason for assessment year 2013-14, the ld. CIT(A) followed the aforesaid Tribunal order dated 04.10.2017, passed in ITA 501/CHD/2017, in the assessee's own case

SANJEEV KUMAR KATHURIA,YAMUNA NAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 , YAMUNANAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

disallowance under section 40A(3) of the Act amounting to Rs. 12,09,560/-. 4. Subsequently, the assessment records were called for and examined by the Ld. PCIT, Panchkula and a show cause under section 263 dt. 12/12/2023 was issued by the Ld. PCIT and the contents thereof read as under: “Perusal of assessment record reveals that you had sold