BALDEV SINGH,FATEHABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARDS 1, FATEHBAD

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yaday & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 813/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Baldev Singh, Vs. The Ito, बनाम M/S Baldev Singh Jarnail Ward-1, Singh, Anaj Mandi, Fatehabad Dharsul Kalan, Tehsil Tohana, Fatehabad

section rate of tax is to be applied. Hence, this ground is being treated as premature at this stage. 10. In Ground No.4, the Assessee has challenged the interest charged u/s 234A and 234B of the Act and initiation the penalty u/s 271

SUKHMINDER SINGH,CHANDIGARH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the order of the Ld

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

271(1)(b) of the Act. 13. That the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly upheld initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271A of the Act. 14. That the learned assessing officer has wrongly initiated penalty proceedings u/s 234A,234B and 234C of the Act. 15. That the assessee prays for any addition, deletion, amendment and modification in the grounds of appeal

HUSNA BEGAM,YAMUNA NAGAR, HARYANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, YAMUNA NAGAR, YAMUNA NAGAR, HARYANA

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

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

u/s 144 by the AO, without appreciating the fact that the investment of Rs. 1,03,09,200/- was made out of the sale proceeds of agricultural land amounting to Rs. 78,70,000/- and out of the agricultural income of the assessee and there was legitimate sources for purchase of agricultural land. 6. That the learned

BHAGWANT KAUR,MOHALI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

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

u/s 69 and has wrongly remanded the case back to Ld. AO for fresh proceedings/adjudication more-so when the addition was wrongly made, the back material and opportunity of cross examination was not provided. 4. That on facts, circumstances and legal position of the case, the orders passed by Ld. AO and then by Worthy CIT(A) deserves

IPF VIKRAM INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE, PANCHKULA, PANCHKULA

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

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

u/s 143(3) on 29.09.2016 and as such upholding of reopening on wrong facts is illegal, arbitrary and unjustified. 4. Without prejudice to the above, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) has erred in directing the assessing officer to verify the payment of Rs.18,63,488/- with the due dates of the Employees contribution on the basis of decision

SMT. JAGDEEP KAUR,LUDHIANA vs. ITO, WARD 6(4), LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

Bench: This Hon’Ble Tribunal Under Section 253 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. The Assessee Is Aggrieved By Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022- 23/1048105767(1) Dt. 20/12/2022 Which Was Passed By The Ld. Cit(A) Nfac, Delhi Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Said First Appeal Was Dismissed By The Ld. Cit(A). Therefore Assessee Is Before Us. The Said Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Is Hereinafter Referred To As The “Impugned Order”. 4. In Form No. 36 The Assessee Interalia Has Take Up Following Grounds Of Appeal Against The Impugned Order Which Are Reproduced Below:

271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 for concealment of particulars of income are being initiated separately. Penalty proceedings u/s 271F for non filing of Income Tax Return are being initiated separately. Based upon above, the total income of the assessee is computed as under:- Addition on account of unexplained cash credit u/s 68 Rs. 7,35,000/- Assessed

SUNRISE INFRATEC PRIVATE LIMITED,PANCHKULA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeal of the Assessee stand allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1196/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Sunrise Infratec Private The Ito, बनाम Limited, Ward 3(5), H.No. 858, Sector 4, Chandigarh Vs. Panchkula 134112 "थायी लेखा सं./ Pan No: Aaqcs4002D अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent ( Hybrid Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Sh. T.N. Singla, Ca (Virtual Mode) राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Sh. Rajat Kumar Kureel, Cit Dr

penalty proceedings initiated by the AO u/s 271(1)(c) and 271(1)(b). 16. That the Ld. JCIT (A) has wrongly upheld interest charged by the AO u/s 234A and 234B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 17. That the appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or withdraw any grounds of appeal before the final hearing. Additional Grounds

DAI CHAND,KAITHAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, KAITHAL

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

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

penalty provisions of section 271(1)(c), 271(1)(b) and 271F of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 8. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. A.O. has erred in law and on facts in charging interest u/s 234A and 234B

M/S ASHA TECHNOLOGIES,KALA AMB vs. ITO, SIRMOUR

In the result, both the above appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed as aforesaid in respect of impugned orders dt

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

u/s 133A of the IT Act to find out the true facts of the case when there was no compliance and cooperation on the part of the assessee to prove its primary onus. And on the basis of survey only true facts of the case were ascertained which helped in ascertaining the factual reality. The assessing office collected information u/s

M/S ASHA TECHNOLOGIES,SIRMOUR vs. ADDL. CIT, SOLAN

In the result, both the above appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed as aforesaid in respect of impugned orders dt

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

u/s 133A of the IT Act to find out the true facts of the case when there was no compliance and cooperation on the part of the assessee to prove its primary onus. And on the basis of survey only true facts of the case were ascertained which helped in ascertaining the factual reality. The assessing office collected information u/s

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

234B & 234C of the\nIncome Tax Act, 1961 which is consequential in nature. The AO shall charge the Interest as per\nlaw.\n5.4 Ground of Appeal No. 6 is regarding 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

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

234B & 234C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which is consequential in nature. The AO shall charge the Interest as per law. 5.4 Ground of Appeal No. 6 is regarding 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

SUKHDEV RAJ,SIRSA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, SIRSA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

234B of the Act which are not leviable on the facts of the appellant. 6. In the present appeal, the assessee has filed a petition seeking permission to raise and argue additional grounds, which are purely legal in nature. The proposed additional grounds are reproduced below: 1. "That the order of assessment u/s 147/144B of the Act passed

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