DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. PARAMJIT SINGH, MOHALI

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

201, Sector 16-A, Chandigarh Chandigarh "थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AETPK0153M Appeal against the order of CIT(A)-3, Gurgaon dated 28.10.2016 आयकर अपील सं./ ITA Nos. 48 to 50/CHD/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2008-09, 2010-11 & 2011-12 The DCIT, Central Circle-1, Sh. Paramjit Singh, बनाम Chandigarh H.N o.4197, Sector 68, Mohali "थायी लेखा सं

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. JASWANT KAUR, MOHALI

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

201, Sector 16-A, Chandigarh Chandigarh "थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AETPK0153M Appeal against the order of CIT(A)-3, Gurgaon dated 28.10.2016 आयकर अपील सं./ ITA Nos. 48 to 50/CHD/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2008-09, 2010-11 & 2011-12 The DCIT, Central Circle-1, Sh. Paramjit Singh, बनाम Chandigarh H.N o.4197, Sector 68, Mohali "थायी लेखा सं

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. MANJIT KAUR, CHANDIGARH

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

201, Sector 16-A, Chandigarh Chandigarh "थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AETPK0153M Appeal against the order of CIT(A)-3, Gurgaon dated 28.10.2016 आयकर अपील सं./ ITA Nos. 48 to 50/CHD/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2008-09, 2010-11 & 2011-12 The DCIT, Central Circle-1, Sh. Paramjit Singh, बनाम Chandigarh H.N o.4197, Sector 68, Mohali "थायी लेखा सं

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. KULWANT SINGH, MOHALI

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

201, Sector 16-A, Chandigarh Chandigarh "थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AETPK0153M Appeal against the order of CIT(A)-3, Gurgaon dated 28.10.2016 आयकर अपील सं./ ITA Nos. 48 to 50/CHD/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2008-09, 2010-11 & 2011-12 The DCIT, Central Circle-1, Sh. Paramjit Singh, बनाम Chandigarh H.N o.4197, Sector 68, Mohali "थायी लेखा सं

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. PARAMJIT SINGH, MOHALI

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

201, Sector 16-A, Chandigarh Chandigarh "थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AETPK0153M Appeal against the order of CIT(A)-3, Gurgaon dated 28.10.2016 आयकर अपील सं./ ITA Nos. 48 to 50/CHD/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2008-09, 2010-11 & 2011-12 The DCIT, Central Circle-1, Sh. Paramjit Singh, बनाम Chandigarh H.N o.4197, Sector 68, Mohali "थायी लेखा सं

SH. SATPAL GOSAIN,LUDHIANA vs. ACIT, LUDHIANA

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

201, 232 to 25S, 271 to 273, 283 to 5 A.Y.2007-08 298, 303 to 308, 310 to 316, 332 to 334, 356 to 358 and 361 of 2013, 10 to 16, 25, 26, 73, 74, 90, 110, 136, 191, 192, 253, 254, 278 and 398 of 2014 vide order dated 22.07.2015 has held as under: "As per the order

DINESH VERMA,MANALI, HIMACHAL PRADESH vs. ITO, ITO WARD KULLU

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is dismissed

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

u/s 270A of the Act after following due procedure laid down and to take consequential action. 5. Aggrieved, the assessee has preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal. 6. During the course of hearing the Ld. AR submitted that the Assessing Officer had examined the matter and therefore the revision under section 263 was invalid. It was contended that

M/S PUNJAB INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT BOARD,CHANDIGARH vs. ACIT (TDS), CHANDIGARH

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Gupta

201(1) of the Act read with second proviso to section 40(a)(ia) of the Act was to be taken as declaratory and curative in nature and the same has the retrospective effect from 1.4.2005. The Tribunal, therefore, held that the assessee under the circumstances ITA Nos. 880, 881 & 9-c-13, 788 to 7891-C-2014- Punjab Infrastructure

PUNJAB INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT BOARD,CHANDIGARH vs. JCIT (TDS), CHANDIGARH

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Gupta

201(1) of the Act read with second proviso to section 40(a)(ia) of the Act was to be taken as declaratory and curative in nature and the same has the retrospective effect from 1.4.2005. The Tribunal, therefore, held that the assessee under the circumstances ITA Nos. 880, 881 & 9-c-13, 788 to 7891-C-2014- Punjab Infrastructure

PUNJAB INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT BOARD,CHANDIGARH vs. JCIT (TDS), CHANDIGARH

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Gupta

201(1) of the Act read with second proviso to section 40(a)(ia) of the Act was to be taken as declaratory and curative in nature and the same has the retrospective effect from 1.4.2005. The Tribunal, therefore, held that the assessee under the circumstances ITA Nos. 880, 881 & 9-c-13, 788 to 7891-C-2014- Punjab Infrastructure

M/S PUNJAB INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT BOARD,CHANDIGARH vs. ACIT (TDS), CHANDIGARH

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Gupta

201(1) of the Act read with second proviso to section 40(a)(ia) of the Act was to be taken as declaratory and curative in nature and the same has the retrospective effect from 1.4.2005. The Tribunal, therefore, held that the assessee under the circumstances ITA Nos. 880, 881 & 9-c-13, 788 to 7891-C-2014- Punjab Infrastructure

PUNJAB INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT BOARD,CHANDIGARH vs. JCIT (TDS), CHANDIGARH

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Gupta

201(1) of the Act read with second proviso to section 40(a)(ia) of the Act was to be taken as declaratory and curative in nature and the same has the retrospective effect from 1.4.2005. The Tribunal, therefore, held that the assessee under the circumstances ITA Nos. 880, 881 & 9-c-13, 788 to 7891-C-2014- Punjab Infrastructure

PUNJAB INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT BOARD,CHANDIGARH vs. JCIT (TDS), CHANDIGARH

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Gupta

201(1) of the Act read with second proviso to section 40(a)(ia) of the Act was to be taken as declaratory and curative in nature and the same has the retrospective effect from 1.4.2005. The Tribunal, therefore, held that the assessee under the circumstances ITA Nos. 880, 881 & 9-c-13, 788 to 7891-C-2014- Punjab Infrastructure

DCIT, C-5, LUDHIANA vs. M/S HERO CYCLES LTD., LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed and the Cross

Penalty proceeding u/s 271(l)(c) is initiated separately for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income as discussed above. D) Disallowance of Interest u/s 36(l)(iii) on Share Application Money:- On the details has submitted by the assessee regarding investments it is seen that the assessee has invested certain sum of its money as mentioned below under the head share

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

201 1-12 and 2013-14 and the common thread which runs through all these orders passed by the Tribunal is the issue of assessee's eligibility for deduction u/s 80IC of the Act on substantial expansion. The order of the ITAT for assessment years 2010- 11 and 2013-14 in ITA Nos.122 & 123/Chd/2019 vide order dated 14.06.2019 specifically accepts

SH. RAVINANDAN KUMAR,LUDHIANA vs. ACIT, C-7, LUDHIANA

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

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) for filing inaccurate particulars of income are being initiated separately. (Addition of Rs.40,53,426/-) 5. The Ld.Counsel for the assessee drew our attention to the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and stated that despite reiterating his contention which were made before the AO, before the CIT(A) also, as reproduced at para

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)

271-276 of JPB). iii) ITA No. 1393/D/2017 Dated: 16.04.2021 Paramjeeet Singh Vs ACIT. (Page 277-280 of JPB). iv) ITA N. 5084/D/2019 Dated: 06.07.2022 Girish Kumar vs. ITO (Page 343-348 of JPB). v) ITA No. 1418/D/2023 Dated 21.09.2022 Kamla Devi vs. ITO (Page 349-355 of JPB). vi) ITA No. 1539/D/2020 Dated 17.03.2023 ITO vs. Hari Singh Saini

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)

271-276 of JPB). iii) ITA No. 1393/D/2017 Dated: 16.04.2021 Paramjeeet Singh Vs ACIT. (Page 277-280 of JPB). iv) ITA N. 5084/D/2019 Dated: 06.07.2022 Girish Kumar vs. ITO (Page 343-348 of JPB). v) ITA No. 1418/D/2023 Dated 21.09.2022 Kamla Devi vs. ITO (Page 349-355 of JPB). vi) ITA No. 1539/D/2020 Dated 17.03.2023 ITO vs. Hari Singh Saini