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

271(1)(c) of the Act. We find that charging of interest u/s 234A and 234B is consequential to the additions made to the income of the Assessee which is yet to be decided. 11. As far as initiation of penalty is concerned, the Assessee has an independent right to challenge those proceedings before the appropriate Forum, therefore, these pleas

M/S HOTEL OAK VALLEY RESIDENCY,CHAMBA vs. ITO, BANIKHET

In the result this appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sanjay Gargआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 772/Chd/2012 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08

penalty proceedings u/s 271 (1 )(b) without appreciating written submissions made. 5. That the learned CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed action of ITO in adopting status of assessee firm as AOP without ITA Nos. 772-c-12, 485-c-17 & 496-c-18- M/s Oak Valley Residency, Chamba 3 appreciating written submissions made in this regard. 6. That the learned

M/S OAK VALLEY RESIDENCY,DALHOUISE vs. ITO, DALHOUSIE AT, BANIKHET

In the result this appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sanjay Gargआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 772/Chd/2012 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08

penalty proceedings u/s 271 (1 )(b) without appreciating written submissions made. 5. That the learned CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed action of ITO in adopting status of assessee firm as AOP without ITA Nos. 772-c-12, 485-c-17 & 496-c-18- M/s Oak Valley Residency, Chamba 3 appreciating written submissions made in this regard. 6. That the learned

M/S OAK VALLEY RESIDENCY,DALHOUSIE vs. ITO, BANIKHET

In the result this appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sanjay Gargआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 772/Chd/2012 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08

penalty proceedings u/s 271 (1 )(b) without appreciating written submissions made. 5. That the learned CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed action of ITO in adopting status of assessee firm as AOP without ITA Nos. 772-c-12, 485-c-17 & 496-c-18- M/s Oak Valley Residency, Chamba 3 appreciating written submissions made in this regard. 6. That the learned

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

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

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

penalty u/s 271(1) (c ) has wrongly been initiated by the Assessing Officer and interest u/s 234B has wrongly been charged. 3. The perusal of above grounds of appeal reveal that apart from challenging the addition made by the Assessing officer by way of withdrawing a part of rebate given u/s 88E of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short

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

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

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

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

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

ACIT, SANGRUR vs. M/S H.M.STEELS LTD, DIRBA

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarआयकर अपील सं Ita No. 366/Chd/2013 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09

234B and 234-C, on the facts and circumstances of the case, has been wrongly and illegally charged and levied. 8. That the appellant craves permission to elucidate, amend, alter, add or delete any ground of appeal at the time of hearing. It is therefore prayed that the appeal may kindly be accepted and the addition may kindly be deleted

H.M. STEELS LTD.,SANGRUR vs. ACIT, SANGRUR

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarआयकर अपील सं Ita No. 366/Chd/2013 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09

234B and 234-C, on the facts and circumstances of the case, has been wrongly and illegally charged and levied. 8. That the appellant craves permission to elucidate, amend, alter, add or delete any ground of appeal at the time of hearing. It is therefore prayed that the appeal may kindly be accepted and the addition may kindly be deleted

DCIT, SANGRUR vs. M/S H.M. STEEL LTD., SANGRUR

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarआयकर अपील सं Ita No. 366/Chd/2013 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09

234B and 234-C, on the facts and circumstances of the case, has been wrongly and illegally charged and levied. 8. That the appellant craves permission to elucidate, amend, alter, add or delete any ground of appeal at the time of hearing. It is therefore prayed that the appeal may kindly be accepted and the addition may kindly be deleted

H.M. STEELS LTD.,SANGRUR vs. ACIT, SANGRUR

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarआयकर अपील सं Ita No. 366/Chd/2013 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09

234B and 234-C, on the facts and circumstances of the case, has been wrongly and illegally charged and levied. 8. That the appellant craves permission to elucidate, amend, alter, add or delete any ground of appeal at the time of hearing. It is therefore prayed that the appeal may kindly be accepted and the addition may kindly be deleted

M/S H.M. STEEL LTD.,SANGRUR vs. ADDL. CIT, SANGRUR

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarआयकर अपील सं Ita No. 366/Chd/2013 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09

234B and 234-C, on the facts and circumstances of the case, has been wrongly and illegally charged and levied. 8. That the appellant craves permission to elucidate, amend, alter, add or delete any ground of appeal at the time of hearing. It is therefore prayed that the appeal may kindly be accepted and the addition may kindly be deleted

DCIT, SANGRUR vs. M/S H.M. STEEL LTD., SANGRUR

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarआयकर अपील सं Ita No. 366/Chd/2013 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09

234B and 234-C, on the facts and circumstances of the case, has been wrongly and illegally charged and levied. 8. That the appellant craves permission to elucidate, amend, alter, add or delete any ground of appeal at the time of hearing. It is therefore prayed that the appeal may kindly be accepted and the addition may kindly be deleted