AKM RESORTS,MOHALI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 5(1), CHANDIGARH

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: This Tribunal. The Assessee

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and that he has no explanation to offer. 2.5 The ld. AO keeping in view that the assessee has not filed any reply was left with no other option but to decide the issue of penalty on merits on the basis of material available on record. ITA 42/CHD/2024

SUBHASH CHANDER GUPTA, H.NO. 16528 VISHNU COLONY, RALIWAY ROAD, KURUKSHETRA,HARYANA vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KURUKSHETRA

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahay

u/s 147-148. 8. After examining the case as above together with the information available on record and the replies filed on behalf of the assessee, I hold the afore said amount of Rs. 13.00 crores as to be the assessee's undisclosed income, which, in addition to normal tax liability thereon, also renders the assessee liable for penalty under

SUBHASH CHANDER GUPTA, H.NO. 1652 8 VISHNU COLONY, RAILWAY ROAD, KURUKSHETRA,HARYANA vs. ITO WARD-3, KURUKSHETRA, HARYANA

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahay

u/s 147-148. 8. After examining the case as above together with the information available on record and the replies filed on behalf of the assessee, I hold the afore said amount of Rs. 13.00 crores as to be the assessee's undisclosed income, which, in addition to normal tax liability thereon, also renders the assessee liable for penalty under

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, LUDHIANA vs. MALBROS INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD, FARIDKOT

In the result, both the appeals and the Cross Objections are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 992 & 993/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2017-18, 2016-17 The Dcit, Vs Malbros International Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-2, Village – Mansoorwal, Teh-Zira, Ludhiana. Head Offices Old Cantt. Road, Faridkot. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aadcm7203R अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & C.O. Nos. 46 & 45/Chd/2024 In आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 992 & 993/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18, 2016-17 Malbros International Pvt. Ltd., The Dcit, Village – Mansoorwal, Teh-Zira, Vs Central Circle-2, Head Offices Old Cantt. Road, Ludhiana. Faridkot. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aadcm7203R अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate Revenue By : Smt. Kusum Bansal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 14.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.06.2025

penalty u/s 271(1)(C) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which is premature in nature. ITA No.992 & 993/CHD/2024 & CO 46 & 45/CHD/2024 A.Y.2017-18 & 2016-17 14 5.5 Ground of Appeal No. 7 is consequential in nature. 5.6 Ground of Appeal No. 8 has not been argued by the AR during the course of appellate proceedings. 6. In the result

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, LUDHIANA vs. MALBROS INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD, FARIDKOT

In the result, both the appeals and the Cross Objections\nare dismissed

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act,\n1961 which is premature in nature.\n5.5 Ground of Appeal No. 7 is consequential in nature.\n5.6 Ground of Appeal No. 8 has not been argued by the AR during the course of\nappellate proceedings.\n6. In the result the appeal is allowed on factual grounds.”\n11. Before

KANGRA VALLEY GARDEN HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED,KANGRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD DHARAMSHALA, HIMACHAL PRADESH, DHARAMSHALA

Appeal of the assessee is allowed as and by

Bench: This Tribunal As & By Way Of Second Appeal.

u/s 68 were completely looked into. (ii) Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Nr Portfolio Pvt. Ltd. on 22 November, 2013 "Whether or not onus is discharged depends upon facts of each case. It depends on whether the two parties are related or known to each; the manner or mode by which the parties approached each other, whether the transaction

KANGRA VALLEY GARDEN HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED,KANGRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD DHARAMSHALA, HIMACHAL PRADESH, DHARAMSHALA

Appeal of the assessee is allowed as and by

Bench: This Tribunal As & By Way Of Second Appeal.

u/s 68 were completely looked into. (ii) Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Nr Portfolio Pvt. Ltd. on 22 November, 2013 "Whether or not onus is discharged depends upon facts of each case. It depends on whether the two parties are related or known to each; the manner or mode by which the parties approached each other, whether the transaction

KANGRA VALLEY GARDEN HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED,KANGRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD DHARAMSHALA, HIMACHAL PRADESH, DHARAMSHALA

Appeal of the assessee is allowed as and by

Bench: This Tribunal As & By Way Of Second Appeal.

u/s 68 were completely looked into. (ii) Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Nr Portfolio Pvt. Ltd. on 22 November, 2013 "Whether or not onus is discharged depends upon facts of each case. It depends on whether the two parties are related or known to each; the manner or mode by which the parties approached each other, whether the transaction

DAMANDEEP KAUR,MOHALI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL CIRCLE-2), CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed

271 | 94 | Non-Resident\n| | 07-01-2017 | 31.03.2017 | 83 | | | \n| 2017-18 | 01.04.2017 | 18-07-2017 | 108 | 328 | 37 | Non-Resident\n\n| | 23-08-2017 | 31.03.2018 | 220 | | | \n| 2018-19 | 01.04.2018 | 31-03-2019 | 365 | 365 | 0 | Non-Resident

DAMANDEEP KAUR,MOHALI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL CIRCLE-2), CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed

271 | 94 | Non-Resident\n| | 07-01-2017\n31.03.2017 | 83 | | |\n| 2017-18 | 01.04.2017\n18-07-2017 | 108 | 328 | 37 | Non-Resident\n\n| | 23-08-2017\n31.03.2018 | 220 | | |\n| 2018-19 | 01.04.2018\n31-03-2019 | 365 | 365 | 0 | Non-Resident\n| | 01-04-2019\n09-07-2019 | 99 | | |\n| 2019-20 | | 323 | 43 | Non-Resident

DAMANDEEP KAUR,MOHALI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL CIRCLE-2), CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed

271 | 94 | Non-Resident |\n| | 10-08-2016 | 16-12-2016 | 127 | | | |\n| | 07-01-2017 | 31.03.2017 | 83 | | | |\n| 2017-18 | 01.04.2017 | 18-07-2017 | 108 | 328 | 37 | Non-Resident |\n| | 23-08-2017 | 31.03.2018 | 220 | | | |\n| 2018-19 | 01.04.2018 | 31-03-2019 | 365 | 365 | 0 | Non-Resident

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)

161 taxmann.com 735 (Delhi - Trib.) Jai Parkash vs PCIT. ii) ITA NO. 2406/Del/2014 (Delhi - Trib.) Mulkh Raj Mehta & Sons (HUF) vs PCIT. (Page 391-400 of JPB). 9.2 That Hon’ble Delhi Tribunal is continuingly following CIT vs. Ghanshyam HUF reported in 315 ITR 1, reliance is placed on below mentioned judicial pronouncements: i) ITA No. 5391/D/2017 dated

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)

161 taxmann.com 735 (Delhi - Trib.) Jai Parkash vs PCIT. ii) ITA NO. 2406/Del/2014 (Delhi - Trib.) Mulkh Raj Mehta & Sons (HUF) vs PCIT. (Page 391-400 of JPB). 9.2 That Hon’ble Delhi Tribunal is continuingly following CIT vs. Ghanshyam HUF reported in 315 ITR 1, reliance is placed on below mentioned judicial pronouncements: i) ITA No. 5391/D/2017 dated

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)

161 taxmann.com 735 (Delhi - Trib.) Jai Parkash vs PCIT. ii) ITA NO. 2406/Del/2014 (Delhi - Trib.) Mulkh Raj Mehta & Sons (HUF) vs PCIT. (Page 391-400 of JPB). 9.2 That Hon’ble Delhi Tribunal is continuingly following CIT vs. Ghanshyam HUF reported in 315 ITR 1, reliance is placed on below mentioned judicial pronouncements: i) ITA No. 5391/D/2017 dated

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)

161 taxmann.com 735 (Delhi - Trib.) Jai Parkash vs PCIT. ii) ITA NO. 2406/Del/2014 (Delhi - Trib.) Mulkh Raj Mehta & Sons (HUF) vs PCIT. (Page 391-400 of JPB). 9.2 That Hon’ble Delhi Tribunal is continuingly following CIT vs. Ghanshyam HUF reported in 315 ITR 1, reliance is placed on below mentioned judicial pronouncements: i) ITA No. 5391/D/2017 dated

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)

161 taxmann.com 735 (Delhi - Trib.) Jai Parkash vs PCIT. ii) ITA NO. 2406/Del/2014 (Delhi - Trib.) Mulkh Raj Mehta & Sons (HUF) vs PCIT. (Page 391-400 of JPB). 9.2 That Hon’ble Delhi Tribunal is continuingly following CIT vs. Ghanshyam HUF reported in 315 ITR 1, reliance is placed on below mentioned judicial pronouncements: i) ITA No. 5391/D/2017 dated

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)

161 taxmann.com 735 (Delhi - Trib.) Jai Parkash vs PCIT. ii) ITA NO. 2406/Del/2014 (Delhi - Trib.) Mulkh Raj Mehta & Sons (HUF) vs PCIT. (Page 391-400 of JPB). 9.2 That Hon’ble Delhi Tribunal is continuingly following CIT vs. Ghanshyam HUF reported in 315 ITR 1, reliance is placed on below mentioned judicial pronouncements: i) ITA No. 5391/D/2017 dated

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)

161 taxmann.com 735 (Delhi - Trib.) Jai Parkash vs PCIT. ii) ITA NO. 2406/Del/2014 (Delhi - Trib.) Mulkh Raj Mehta & Sons (HUF) vs PCIT. (Page 391-400 of JPB). 9.2 That Hon’ble Delhi Tribunal is continuingly following CIT vs. Ghanshyam HUF reported in 315 ITR 1, reliance is placed on below mentioned judicial pronouncements: i) ITA No. 5391/D/2017 dated