PAWAN GARG,PANCHKULA vs. ITO WARD 5((5) CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1218/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Pawan Garg, The Ito, House No. 766, Sector 16, Vs Ward 5(5), Panchkula. Chandigarh. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Abmpg4243N अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ajay Jain, Ca Revenue By : Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. Cit Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 27.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 02.02.2026

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) for concealing the income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income have been initiated separately. Issue notice of demand.” 4. The appeal to the CIT (Appeals) did not bring any relief to the assessee. 5. The ld. counsel for the assessee while impugning the orders of Revenue Authorities submitted that on 06.04.2009, assessee

GURMEET SINGH,PUNJAB vs. ITO, WARD-2(2), ROPAR, PUNJAB

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumarआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 713/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Gurmeet Singh, Ito, बनाम 939, Type Ii, Ward 2(2), Nuhon Colony Ghanauli, Ropar Vs. Rupnagar 140113 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Ageps7897P अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent ( Virtual Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri. Parikshit Aggarwal,Ca राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Smt. Surinder Kaur Waraich, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 27-08-2025 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 27-08-2025 आदेश/Order

reassessment proceedings u/s 147 r.w.s. 263 of the Act, it was noticed that the assessee had received gifts aggregating to ₹11,15,000/-. Out of these, amounts of ₹1,00,000/- each were received from three cousins, namely, Shri Baldev Singh, Shri Jaswinder Singh and Shri Nirmal Singh. The Assessing Officer treated the sum of ₹3,00,000/- as taxable

SH. RAJIV KUMAR,MOHALI vs. ACIT, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeals of the assessee bearing

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

penalty under section. 271(1)(c) of the Act, levied pursuant to the aforesaid quantum additions. I.T.A. No.1325,1326,1421/CHANDI/2010 I.T.A. No.274,275/CHANDI/2014 Shri Rajiv Kumar Shri Sohan Lal Arora Assessment Year: 2006-07 2. So far as the appeal agitating the quantum additions are concerned, the assessees apart from contesting the additions on merits, have taken the following additional

SH.SOHAN LAL ARORA,MOHALI vs. ACIT, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeals of the assessee bearing

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

penalty under section. 271(1)(c) of the Act, levied pursuant to the aforesaid quantum additions. I.T.A. No.1325,1326,1421/CHANDI/2010 I.T.A. No.274,275/CHANDI/2014 Shri Rajiv Kumar Shri Sohan Lal Arora Assessment Year: 2006-07 2. So far as the appeal agitating the quantum additions are concerned, the assessees apart from contesting the additions on merits, have taken the following additional

SH. S.L. ARORA,MOHALI vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeals of the assessee bearing

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

penalty under section. 271(1)(c) of the Act, levied pursuant to the aforesaid quantum additions. I.T.A. No.1325,1326,1421/CHANDI/2010 I.T.A. No.274,275/CHANDI/2014 Shri Rajiv Kumar Shri Sohan Lal Arora Assessment Year: 2006-07 2. So far as the appeal agitating the quantum additions are concerned, the assessees apart from contesting the additions on merits, have taken the following additional

SH. RAJIV KUMAR,MOHALI vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeals of the assessee bearing

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

penalty under section. 271(1)(c) of the Act, levied pursuant to the aforesaid quantum additions. I.T.A. No.1325,1326,1421/CHANDI/2010 I.T.A. No.274,275/CHANDI/2014 Shri Rajiv Kumar Shri Sohan Lal Arora Assessment Year: 2006-07 2. So far as the appeal agitating the quantum additions are concerned, the assessees apart from contesting the additions on merits, have taken the following additional

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. S.L. ARORA, MOHALI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee bearing

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

penalty under section. 271(1)(c) of the Act, levied pursuant to the aforesaid quantum additions. I.T.A. No.1325,1326,1421/CHANDI/2010 I.T.A. No.274,275/CHANDI/2014 Shri Rajiv Kumar Shri Sohan Lal Arora Assessment Year: 2006-07 2. So far as the appeal agitating the quantum additions are concerned, the assessees apart from contesting the additions on merits, have taken the following additional

DCIT, CC-I, CHANDIGARH , CHANDIGARH vs. VALCO INDUSTRIES LTD., , CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: The Hon'Ble Punjab & Haryana High Court? Ii) Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Ld. Cit(A) Is Right Holding Such Consequential Order As Void An Initio Ignoring The Facts That Order Passed By Ld. Pcit (Central), Gurugram U/S 263 Has Not Attained Its Finality? Iii) Whether On The Facts & In Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Was Right In Holding That Consequential Order Passed U/S 147 R.W.S. 263 Of The Act As Void As Initio Without Giving Any Liberty To The Revenue To Revive The Proceedings Consequent To Any Directions Or Order

reassessment u/s 147 of the Act and the Ld.CIT(A) had dismissed the assessee's appeals. In assessment year 2012-13 also, the ITAT has categorically allowed the assessee's claim for deduction u/s 80IC of the Act @ 100% on account of substantial expansion vide order in ITA No.305/Chd/2021 dated 1 1.05.2022 and, the Coordinate Bench of the ITAT

J. K. EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,JAMMU vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for A.Y 2009-10. 2. All these cases are heard together and are being disposed off by this consolidated order. With the consent of both the parties, appeal in ITA No. 126/Asr/2019 for A.Y 2008-09 was taken as a lead case wherein the assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal

J.K. EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,JAMMU & KASHMIR vs. DCIT (EXEMPTION)-CIRCLE-1,, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for A.Y 2009-10. 2. All these cases are heard together and are being disposed off by this consolidated order. With the consent of both the parties, appeal in ITA No. 126/Asr/2019 for A.Y 2008-09 was taken as a lead case wherein the assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal

J.K.EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,JAMMU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for A.Y 2009-10. 2. All these cases are heard together and are being disposed off by this consolidated order. With the consent of both the parties, appeal in ITA No. 126/Asr/2019 for A.Y 2008-09 was taken as a lead case wherein the assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal

SHRI DINESH SETHI,LUDHIANA vs. ITO, LUDHIANA

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 376/Chd/2014 & "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07 Shri Janesh Sethi, Legal Heir Of बनाम The Ito, Late Shri Dinesh Sethi, Ward – 1(1), Vs Prop. M/S R.S. Trading Corp., Ludhiana. C-434, Urban Estate Focal Point, Ludhiana. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan /Tan No: Aaqpk1200Q अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Manav Bansal, Cit Dr तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 23.06.2025 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 04.8.2025

penalty order passed u/s 271(1)(c) vide order dated 25.06.2009 against whom appeal has been dismissed by the CIT (Appeals) by way of the impugned order). 2. It has been brought to our notice that assessee Shri Dinesh Sethi has died on 14.02.2024. Death Certificate of the assessee has been annexed by the ld. counsel for the assessee

SH. DINESH SETHI,LUDHIANA vs. ITO, LUDHIANA

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 376/Chd/2014 & "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07 Shri Janesh Sethi, Legal Heir Of बनाम The Ito, Late Shri Dinesh Sethi, Ward – 1(1), Vs Prop. M/S R.S. Trading Corp., Ludhiana. C-434, Urban Estate Focal Point, Ludhiana. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan /Tan No: Aaqpk1200Q अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Manav Bansal, Cit Dr तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 23.06.2025 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 04.8.2025

penalty order passed u/s 271(1)(c) vide order dated 25.06.2009 against whom appeal has been dismissed by the CIT (Appeals) by way of the impugned order). 2. It has been brought to our notice that assessee Shri Dinesh Sethi has died on 14.02.2024. Death Certificate of the assessee has been annexed by the ld. counsel for the assessee

SHRI RAM SINGH(DEMISED) L/H SHRI HARVINDER SINGH,PANCHKULA vs. ITO-WARD-6(5), MOHALI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Smt.Diva Singh & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav(Assessment Year: 2009-10

penalty proceedings u/s 5 A.Y.2009-10 271(1) (c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 for concealment of particulars of income are initiated separately.” 4. Being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) challenging the order passed by the AO both on legality as well on merits of the case. The Ld.CIT(A), however, rejected the grounds

BEE GEE CONSTRUCTION CO,ZIRAKPUR vs. ACIT, CIR-3(1), CHANDIGARH

The appeal stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

reassessment proceedings which reached up-to Tribunal vide cross-appeals ITA Nos.572 & 597/Chandi/2024 wherein the assessment has been quashed in legal grounds alone without going into the merits of the case. On these facts, it could not be said that this claim was allowed on merits after due examination & verification in earlier years. Therefore, this plea of Ld. AR could

BEE GEE CONSTRUCTION CO,ZIRAKPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 3(1), CHANDIGARH

The appeal stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

reassessment proceedings which reached up-to Tribunal vide cross-appeals ITA Nos.572 & 597/Chandi/2024 wherein the assessment has been quashed in legal grounds alone without going into the merits of the case. On these facts, it could not be said that this claim was allowed on merits after due examination & verification in earlier years. Therefore, this plea of Ld. AR could

M/S SRU SECURITIES LTD.,LUDHIANA vs. ACIT, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year : 2008-09

reassessment u/s 147/148 is merely a change of opinion. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in eyes of law and facts of the case by withdrawing the rebate u/s 88E of the Income Tax Act amounting to Rs. 2,62,224/-. 4. Notwithstanding above grounds, it is submitted that the Ld. CIT Appeals) has erred by ignoring

ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, C-4(1), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S SML ISUZU LIMITED, CHANDIGARH

In the result of the value of the opening stock and closing stock

reassessed after loading the element of excise duty at the prevalent rate. Therefore, taking into account the foregoing discussion and in keeping with judicial consistency, the income of the assessee is hereby increased by an amount of Rs. 1,74,99,101/- on account of under valuation of closing Work in progress. Since the assessee has concealed the particulars