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

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Disposal Of Appeal.”

House No. 85, Village Rai Pur Kalan Kharar, SAS Nagar, Mohali "थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: CWJPS6206H अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent िनधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Tej Mohan Singh, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue by : Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr. DR सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date of Hearing : 06/02/2024 उदघोषणा क" तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 03/05/2024 आदेश

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

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Disposal Of Appeal.”

House No. 85, Village Rai Pur Kalan Kharar, SAS Nagar, Mohali "थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: CWJPS6206H अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent िनधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Tej Mohan Singh, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue by : Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr. DR सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date of Hearing : 06/02/2024 उदघोषणा क" तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 03/05/2024 आदेश

DEVI DAYAL,KAITHAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 , KAITHAL

In the result, appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 899/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09 Shri Devi Dayal, Vs The Ito, Pundri Anaj Mandi, Ward – 1, Kaithal-Haryana 136026. Kaithal. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aajpd5851H अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, Ca & Ms. Shruti Khandelwal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Manav Bansal, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 30.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.09.2025

property, as envisaged by a the parties. We are, therefore, of the view that this clause will also not rope in the present transaction. 24. The matter can also be viewed from a slightly different angle. Shri Vohra is right when he ha referred to Sections 45 and 48 of the Income Tax Act and has then argued that some

SH. RAJINDER SINGH BEDI,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT (INTL. TAXATION), CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 538/Chd/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Rajinder Singh Bedi, The Dcit, (Int.Taxation ), 1368, Sector 40-B, Vs Chandigarh. Chandigarh. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Afwpb3355A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate Revenue By : Smt. Kusum Bansal, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 09.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 04.06.2025 Hybrid Hearing O R D E R

Section 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act by Circle-I, International Taxation, Chandigarh. 2. The assessee has taken eight grounds of appeal, however, his grievance revolves around a single issue, namely, A.Y.2018-19 2 as to how true Long Term Capital Gain required to be determined on sale of immovable house property bearing House No. 845 Sector 38-A, Chandigarh

RISHU GARG S/O SH. SURENDER KUMAR GARG,YAMUNANAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3, YAMUNANAGAR

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

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A). However, it is evident from the impugned appellate order that, despite several opportunities granted during the appellate proceedings, the assessee failed to comply and did not file any substantive submissions. Consequently, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal and confirmed the addition primarily on account of non-prosecution and absence of supporting evidence.

House No. 1491, Sector – 4 Panchkula Haryana - 134112 "ायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AGPPG1912N अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ"/Respondent िनधा"रती की ओर से/Assessee by : Ms. Vineet Thakral, Adv. राज" की ओर से/ Revenue by : Shri Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 18/03/2026 उदघोषणा की तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 19/03/2026 आदेश/Order

MAHAKALI DEVELOPERS AND RESORTS PRIVATE LIMITED,SCF vs. PCIT PATIALA, AAYKAR BHAWAN

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahay

144 on 23.03.2022 for both the years. The ld. CIT harboured a belief that assessment orders in both the assessment years are erroneous and have caused a prejudice to the interests of Revenue. Therefore, action under Section 263 is required to be taken. Accordingly, he has issued a Show Cause Notice under Section 263 dated 14.12.2023 in both the years

MAHAKALI DEVELOPERS AND RESORTS PRIVATE LIMITES,SCF , IST FLOOR vs. PCIT PATIALA, AAYKAR BHAWAN PATIALA

The appeals are allowed

144 on 23.03.2022 for both the years.\nThe ld. CIT harboured a belief that assessment orders in\nboth the assessment years are erroneous and have caused a\nprejudice to the interests of Revenue. Therefore, action\nunder Section 263 is required to be taken. Accordingly, he\nhas issued a Show Cause Notice under Section 263 dated\n14.12.2023 in both the years

LEELA DUTT SHARMA,CHANDIGARH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 5(3), CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

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

Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, due to the assessee’s non- compliance. The assessee had declared income under the heads "Income from House Property

RAMESH KUMAR,NEW DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3, PANCHKULA

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

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

section 144 was also issued to the assessee, however in absence of any explanation/submission filed by the assessee, the AO proceeded and completed the assessment proceedings stating that since the assessee has not furnished any explanation in respect of the sale of the property amounting to Rs. 3,15,00,000/- and has not provided the detail of capital gains

YASH PAL JINDAL, 1233, SECTOR 10, AMBALA CITY, HARYANA,HARYANA vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, NFAC DELHI, JAO, INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, AMBALA, HARYANA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurposes

house property, other sources and a\nsmall business. The assessment was reopened under section 147 and\nconcluded under section 144

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)

house property, profits and gains of business or profession, or capital gains, nor is it income from "other sources" because the provisions of sections 69,69A, 69B and 69C treat unexplained investment, unexplained money, bullion, etc., and unexplained expenditure as deemed income where the nature and source of investment, acquisition or expenditure, as the case may be, have not been

SSMT. CHARU AGGARWAL,PATIALA vs. DCIT-CC, PATIALA

In the result, appeals of both the assesses are allowed

144 is an unwarranted action ad devoid of merits. 4. Regarding the cash deposit in cash credit limit account No. 65183224280. The detailed explanation has already been furnished on dated 25/02/2019 along with present reply (Supra) of Pg. 1-4 and the said explanation of 16 Pages is enclosed. 5. It is humbly submitted that with the aforesaid facts

KALANEEDHI JEWELLERS LLP,PATIALA vs. DCIT-CC, PATIALA

In the result, appeals of both the assesses are allowed

144 is an unwarranted action ad devoid of merits. 4. Regarding the cash deposit in cash credit limit account No. 65183224280. The detailed explanation has already been furnished on dated 25/02/2019 along with present reply (Supra) of Pg. 1-4 and the said explanation of 16 Pages is enclosed. 5. It is humbly submitted that with the aforesaid facts

RAVI KAKKAR,MOHALI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, MOHALI

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Us, At The Outset, Both The Parties Submitted That The Issues Raised In Both The Appeals Were Identical. In View Of The Aforesaid

144 of the Act on 18.12.2019, determining the total income of the assessee at Rs. 1,59,29,130/-. 6.1 The AO also initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act for non-compliance with the statutory notices. A show-cause notice was issued on 18.12.2019, followed by subsequent notices on 05.10.2020 and 12.03.2021. The assessee failed

RAVI KAKKAR,MOHALI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Us, At The Outset, Both The Parties Submitted That The Issues Raised In Both The Appeals Were Identical. In View Of The Aforesaid

144 of the Act on 18.12.2019, determining the total income of the assessee at Rs. 1,59,29,130/-. 6.1 The AO also initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act for non-compliance with the statutory notices. A show-cause notice was issued on 18.12.2019, followed by subsequent notices on 05.10.2020 and 12.03.2021. The assessee failed

MANMOHAN SINGH BAJWA,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO, , WARD 6(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

144 of the Income Tax Act. The ld. AO has determined the total taxable income of the assessee at Rs.1,80,70,700/-. A perusal of the computation of income would reveal that he has made an addition of Rs.12,60,500/- on account of cash deposit by the assessee. He treated this amount as unexplained cash. He, thereafter, made

SH. SATNAM SINGH,MOHALI vs. ITO, WARD 6(1), MOHALI

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Krinwant Sahay

house property, capital gains and income from other sources. According to the Assessing Officer the sources of deposits i.e. by way of cash and cheque amounting to Rs. 1,55,05,595/- remained unexplained and accordingly proceedings u/s 147 of the Act were initiated by issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act. Consequent to the above reasons, notice

SH. SATNAM SINGH,MOHALI vs. ITO, WARD 6(4), MOHALI

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Krinwant Sahay

house property, capital gains and income from other sources. According to the Assessing Officer the sources of deposits i.e. by way of cash and cheque amounting to Rs. 1,55,05,595/- remained unexplained and accordingly proceedings u/s 147 of the Act were initiated by issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act. Consequent to the above reasons, notice