ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PANCHKULA CIRCLE, PANCHKULA, PANCHKULA vs. AQUA FIBER INDSUTRIES, PANCHKULA

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A), after considering the detailed submissions and supporting evidences furnished by the assessee, deleted the additions.4. The Revenue's challenge is confined to the CIT(A)'s acceptance of additional evidence allegedly in violation of Rule 46A. The merits of the deletion have not been independently challenged.

section 143(3) of the Act, making additions of Rs.11,55,99,028/-, including: Rs.10,52,04,593/- on account of alleged bogus purchases from six parties,  Rs.13,72,349/- for an unconfirmed sundry creditor (M/s Jiya Jee Synthetics),  Rs.11,88,391/- towards disallowance

MR. ASHISH ARORA,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1152/Chd/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Mr. Ashish Arora, The Dcit B-2, Kitchlu Nagar, बनाम Circle Iii, Ludhiana Rishi Nagar, Vs. Ludhiana "थायी लेखा सं./ Pan No: Adkpa1111B अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent ( Physical Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Sh. Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Sh. Manav Bansal, Cit Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 07.07.2025 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 01.09.2025 आदेश/Order Per Krinwant Sahay, Am : Appeal In This Case Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 19.02.2014 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1. Ludhiana [Herein Referred To As Cit(A)]. The Captioned Appeal Was Dismissed For Non-Prosecution Vide Order Dated 26.7.2016 But Later On The Assessee Filed A Misc. Application Which 1152-Chd-2014 Ashish Arora, Ludhiana 2

section 143(3) of the Income tax Act 1961. 4. That the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeal-1) Ludhiana is bad in law and facts of the case as nobody attend the appeal on behalf of the appellant due to some domestic crises in the family. 5. That the appellant craves to add or amend

AARTI SINGAL,NEW DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

disallowed the claim and added the said amount ofRs. 36,05,27,391/- u/s 68 of the Act income of the appellant and charged commission @ 6.5% at Rs. 2,34,34,280/- as unaccounted commission expenditure u/s 69C of the Act on net bogus pre arranged LTCG provided to the appellant beneficiary. The same are hereby confirmed. Thus, grounds

AARTI SINGAL,NEW DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

disallowed the claim and added the said amount ofRs. 36,05,27,391/- u/s 68 of the Act income of the appellant and charged commission @ 6.5% at Rs. 2,34,34,280/- as unaccounted commission expenditure u/s 69C of the Act on net bogus pre arranged LTCG provided to the appellant beneficiary. The same are hereby confirmed. Thus, grounds

SANJAY SINGAL,NEW DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

disallowed the claim and added the said amount ofRs. 36,05,27,391/- u/s 68 of the Act income of the appellant and charged commission @ 6.5% at Rs. 2,34,34,280/- as unaccounted commission expenditure u/s 69C of the Act on net bogus pre arranged LTCG provided to the appellant beneficiary. The same are hereby confirmed. Thus, grounds

ANIKET SINGAL,NEW DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

disallowed the claim and added the said amount ofRs. 36,05,27,391/- u/s 68 of the Act income of the appellant and charged commission @ 6.5% at Rs. 2,34,34,280/- as unaccounted commission expenditure u/s 69C of the Act on net bogus pre arranged LTCG provided to the appellant beneficiary. The same are hereby confirmed. Thus, grounds

SANJAY SINGAL (HUF),NEW DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH , CHANDIGARH

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

disallowed the claim and added the said amount ofRs. 36,05,27,391/- u/s 68 of the Act income of the appellant and charged commission @ 6.5% at Rs. 2,34,34,280/- as unaccounted commission expenditure u/s 69C of the Act on net bogus pre arranged LTCG provided to the appellant beneficiary. The same are hereby confirmed. Thus, grounds

SH. VISHAL GARG,LUDHIANA vs. ITO, W-1(3), LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee, therefore, stands allowed for statistical purposes

section 14A of the Act the A.O. was required to examine the accounts of the assessee and only when he was not satisfied with the correctness of the claim in respect of the expenditure in respect of the exempt income, he could have resorted to the prescribed method for determining the 4 A.Y.2012-13 amount of expenditure disallowable

ACIT-CENTRAL CIRCLE -1, LUDHIANA vs. M/S AARTI INTERNATIONAL LTD., LUDHIANA

The appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed in light of aforesaid directions

Bench: Cit(A)?

disallowances. Further, during the appellate proceedings, the assessee took an additional ground of appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) vide its letter dated 04.10.2016 stating that TUFS subsidy of Rs. 10,39,49,181/- which has been received by the assessee from the Ministry of Textiles is exempt from tax and should be reduced from the assessed income

SH. RANDHIR SINGH,SIRSA vs. PCIT ROHTAK, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

391-400 of JPB). xi) ITA No. 2741/D/2024 dated 8.1.2025 Babu Lal vs. ITO. (Page 401-419 of JPB). 10 That further in the impugned order passed u/s 263 of the Act it is noted as under: “5.1. I have carefully examined the facts of the case and It is evident that the assessee has received interest on enhanced compensation

SH. KASHMIR SINGH SANDHA,SIRSA vs. PCIT, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

391-400 of JPB). xi) ITA No. 2741/D/2024 dated 8.1.2025 Babu Lal vs. ITO. (Page 401-419 of JPB). 10 That further in the impugned order passed u/s 263 of the Act it is noted as under: “5.1. I have carefully examined the facts of the case and It is evident that the assessee has received interest on enhanced compensation

M/S GANESH DASS HUF,SIRSA vs. PCIT, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

391-400 of JPB). xi) ITA No. 2741/D/2024 dated 8.1.2025 Babu Lal vs. ITO. (Page 401-419 of JPB). 10 That further in the impugned order passed u/s 263 of the Act it is noted as under: “5.1. I have carefully examined the facts of the case and It is evident that the assessee has received interest on enhanced compensation

SH. ARVAIL SINGH,SIRSA vs. PCIT, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

391-400 of JPB). xi) ITA No. 2741/D/2024 dated 8.1.2025 Babu Lal vs. ITO. (Page 401-419 of JPB). 10 That further in the impugned order passed u/s 263 of the Act it is noted as under: “5.1. I have carefully examined the facts of the case and It is evident that the assessee has received interest on enhanced compensation

SH. PARAMJEET SINGH,SIRSA vs. PCIT, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

391-400 of JPB). xi) ITA No. 2741/D/2024 dated 8.1.2025 Babu Lal vs. ITO. (Page 401-419 of JPB). 10 That further in the impugned order passed u/s 263 of the Act it is noted as under: “5.1. I have carefully examined the facts of the case and It is evident that the assessee has received interest on enhanced compensation

SURJEET SINGH,SIRSA vs. PCIT, ROHTAK, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

391-400 of JPB). xi) ITA No. 2741/D/2024 dated 8.1.2025 Babu Lal vs. ITO. (Page 401-419 of JPB). 10 That further in the impugned order passed u/s 263 of the Act it is noted as under: “5.1. I have carefully examined the facts of the case and It is evident that the assessee has received interest on enhanced compensation

DHUNI CHAND HUF,SIRSA vs. PCIT, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

391-400 of JPB). xi) ITA No. 2741/D/2024 dated 8.1.2025 Babu Lal vs. ITO. (Page 401-419 of JPB). 10 That further in the impugned order passed u/s 263 of the Act it is noted as under: “5.1. I have carefully examined the facts of the case and It is evident that the assessee has received interest on enhanced compensation

ITO, W-7(1), LUDHIANA vs. SH. CHANDER KANT JAIN, LUDHIANA

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sanjay Gargआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 1094/Chd/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 The Ito, Vs. Shri Chander Kant Jain Ward 7(1), C/O Ms Nikkamal Jewellers, बनाम Ludhiana 455-The Mall, Ludhiana

section 14A r.w. rule 8D of the Act without examining facts that for maintaining shares and mutual funds assessee has to made some expenses i.e. telephone for sale and purchase, uses of stationary, uses of vehicles and staff, but no expenses was shown in respect of Shares and mutual funds? 2. Whether upon the facts and circumstances of the case

AGRICULTURE SKILL COUNCIL OF INDIA,GURGAON vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

disallowance made by treating the assessee’s income as non-charitable in nature. 6. Additionally, the Ld. AR placed reliance on the decision of the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Centre for Excellence for Agricultural Skills in India, ITA No. 4860/Del/2024, wherein, on identical facts, the Tribunal had held in favour of the assessee and granted