AJMER SINGH,MOHALI vs. ITO, W-6(5), MOHAL

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Disposal Of Appeal.”

property in her name. It is a fact on record that the assessee is an illiterate housewife and has no source of income other than small interest on saving bank account under consideration during the F.Y. 2009-2010. In the assessment preceding under section 142(1) the assessee repeatedly said that the amount in the bank was the sale proceeds

ITO, W-6(5), MOHALI vs. SMT. GURDEV KAUR, KHARAR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Disposal Of Appeal.”

property in her name. It is a fact on record that the assessee is an illiterate housewife and has no source of income other than small interest on saving bank account under consideration during the F.Y. 2009-2010. In the assessment preceding under section 142(1) the assessee repeatedly said that the amount in the bank was the sale proceeds

AJMER SINGH,MOHALI vs. ITO, W-6(5), MOHAL

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Disposal Of Appeal.”

property in her name. It is a fact on record that the assessee is an illiterate housewife and has no source of income other than small interest on saving bank account under consideration during the F.Y. 2009-2010. In the assessment preceding under section 142(1) the assessee repeatedly said that the amount in the bank was the sale proceeds

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-

House No. 235, Sector 6, Ward-1, Panchkula. Panchkula. "थायी लेखा सं./PAN /TAN No: AATPG3730E अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Yogesh Monga, CA राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue by : Shri Vivek Vardhan, JCIT-Sr.DR तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 25.11.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement : 29.01.2025 PHYSICAL HEARING आदेश/ORDER

RAJIV KUMAR GOYAL,DHURI vs. DCIT, CC-2, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: This Hon’Ble Tribunal Under Section 253 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 As Amended From Time To Time. 2. The Assessee Is Aggrieved By Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Dated 03/02/2023 In Appeal No. 10850/2018-19/It/Cit(A)-5/Ldh/2021-22 For A.Y. 2019-20 Under Section 250(6) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Which Was Dismissed. Therefore The Present Second Appeal Under Section 253 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Before Us Against The Aforesaid Order Dt. 03/02/2023 Which Is Hereiafter Referred To As The Impugned Order. Factual Matrix 3. The Assessee Had For The Relevant Year I.E; A.Y. 2019-20 Was Also Engaged In The Same Business I.E; Manufacturing Of Pvc Pipes & Had Filed

142(1) of the Act alongwith detail questionnaire dt. 23/01/2021 was also issued to the assessee. In response to the above captioned notice, the assessee has filed with the Income Tax Authorities detailed reply from time to time, wherein the assessee has duly stated that his nature of business is manufacturing PVC pipes and hence, it is evident that other

DCIT, CIRCLE, PATIALA vs. M/S PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LTD., PATIALA

In the result, ground no. 1 & 3 of the Revenue’s appeal is allowed and ground no

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

142(1) were issued and requisite information were called for from time to time which were submitted by the assessee. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO observed that the assessee has shown an amount of Rs. 772,90,03,275/- as income under the head “other income” in the balance sheet and as per the AO, the said

S.P. SINGLA CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH (Vice President), SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

property being land or building or both, shares and securities, loans and advances and deposits in the bank accounts. From the facts of the case, it is observed that the AO has recorded her satisfaction that income of Rs. 36,10,58,438/- has escaped assessment on account of bogus expenses claimed in the names of fictitious sub contractors

SHRI BALBIR SINGH VERMA,SHIMLA vs. PR.CIT, SHIMLA

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

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

142(1) were issued to the assessee on 21.08.2017. The assessment proceedings, conducted under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, were attended by his authorized representative, Sh. R.K. Kaushal, CA, who provided the relevant details. 3.1 The assessee, a builder and property developer, earned income from house

SMT. ARUNJEET KAUR,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO-WARD-4(5), CHANDIGARH

Bench: This Tribunal. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2012-13

House No.1111, Ward 4(5), Sector 39-B, Chandigarh. Chandigarh. "थायीलेखासं./PAN /TAN No:AGOPK7387G अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, CA & Ms. Shruti Khandelwal, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue by : Shri Vivek Vardhan, JCIT, Sr.DR 24.10.2024 तार"ख/Date of Hearing : उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement

INCOME TAX OFFICER, MOHALI vs. GURTEJ SINGH, MOHALI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

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

House No. 245, Sector 16A Circle-1, Chandigarh Chandigarh "ायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AFFPK4564F अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ"/Respondent िनधा"रती की ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Yogesh Monga, C.A राज" की ओर से/ Revenue by : Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 08/04/2025 उदघोषणा की तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 24/04/2025 आदेश/Order PER LALIET KUMAR

KANWALDEEP KAUR,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

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

House No. 245, Sector 16A Circle-1, Chandigarh Chandigarh "ायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AFFPK4564F अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ"/Respondent िनधा"रती की ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Yogesh Monga, C.A राज" की ओर से/ Revenue by : Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 08/04/2025 उदघोषणा की तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 24/04/2025 आदेश/Order PER LALIET KUMAR

RAV SHARAN SINGH,PATIALA vs. ACIT, C.C., PATIALA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

142(1) were issued and thereafter, taking into consideration the response filed by the assessee to the specific show cause but not finding the same acceptable, the AO invoked the provisions of Section 69 in respect of additional income so surrendered by the assessee amounting to Rs. 25,02,000/-. 3. Being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal

M/S JASHAN FINLEASE LTD.,KHANNA vs. DCIT, CC-1, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

142(1) were issued alongwith questionnaire. 4. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO issued a specific query relating to income surrendered during the course of survey. It was stated by the AO that during the course of survey, the assessee had surrendered a sum of Rs. 75,00,000/- in terms of surrender letter dt. 06/03/2019 on account

M/S SATWANT AGRO ENGINEERS,BHAWANIGARH vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, PATIALA

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

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

142(1) alongwith show cause were issued during the course of assessment proceedings and thereafter considering the submissions of the assessee but not finding the same acceptable, the assessment proceedings were completed under section 143(3) dt. 27/09/2021 wherein the AO brought to tax the excess stock surrendered during the course of survey under section 69, unexplained capital introduced

BABITA JAIN,AMBALA CITY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER ,WARD -1 AMBALA, AMBALA CANTT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed as and by way of remand back to the file of Ld

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

section 142(1) alongwith questionnaire were also issued from time to time in response to which the assessee filed reply online. 6. That during the proceedings the assessee was specifically asked to explain the source of cash deposits of Rs. 48,70,000/- during the demonetization period i.e; 09/11/2016 to 31/12/2016. 7. In response to the query (supra), the assessee

ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1,EXEMPTION,CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH vs. HERITAGE EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, C/O DELHI PUBLIC SCHOOL

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Department

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

section 13(1)(c) of the Act, and also denied the benefit of exemption u/s 11 and 12 of the Act. The Assessing Officer held as follows: “6. I have gone through the submission of the assessee, however, the same is not acceptable and is discussed in the following paras. Point 3 (xviii) on-page No. 3 alongwith clause

ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, EXEMPTION, CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH vs. HERITAGE EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, C/O DELHI PUBLIC SCHOOL

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Department

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

section 13(1)(c) of the Act, and also denied the benefit of exemption u/s 11 and 12 of the Act. The Assessing Officer held as follows: “6. I have gone through the submission of the assessee, however, the same is not acceptable and is discussed in the following paras. Point 3 (xviii) on-page No. 3 alongwith clause

ASSISSTANT COMMISSONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, EXEMPTION, CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH vs. HERITAGE EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, C/O DELHI PUBLIC SCHOOL

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Department

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

section 13(1)(c) of the Act, and also denied the benefit of exemption u/s 11 and 12 of the Act. The Assessing Officer held as follows: “6. I have gone through the submission of the assessee, however, the same is not acceptable and is discussed in the following paras. Point 3 (xviii) on-page No. 3 alongwith clause