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

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: This Tribunal. The Assessee

253 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act] before this Tribunal. The assessee is aggrieved by the order bearing No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1058979375 (1)dated 21.12.2023 passed by the CIT(A) under Section 250 of the Act. The relevant assessment year is 2016-17 and the ITA 42/CHD/2024 A.Y. 2016-17 2 corresponding previous year period

INDER PAL SINGH LEGAL HEIR OF DECEASED SATNAM SINGH 171789, STREET NO.8, GURU TEG BAHADUR JAGRAON,PUNJAB vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1 JAGRAON , PUNJAB

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

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

253 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee is aggrieved by the Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023- 24/1056979491(1) dated 11/10/2023 of Ld. CIT(A) passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which is hereinafter referred to as “impugned order”. Brief Factual Matrix 2. In the instant case, penalty proceedings were initiated against the assessee

SH. SATPAL GOSAIN,LUDHIANA vs. ACIT, LUDHIANA

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

253, 254, 278 and 398 of 2014 vide order dated 22.07.2015 has held as under: "As per the order of the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court " it was submitted by learned counsel for the assessee-appellant that whatever amount was received from the developer, capital gains tax has already been paid on that and sale deeds have also been

MANPREET SINGH BHULLAR,PARWANOO vs. ITO, PARWANOO

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 271(1)(c) for concealment which was upheld by CIT(A). On further appeal Tribunal reversed the orders and cancelled the penalty. On revenue appeal, the High Court upheld the decision of Tribunal holding that where penalty is imposed in respect of an addition where High Court has admitted appeal as substantial question of law, then sustainability

M/S COLOUR COTTEX PVT. LTD.,LUDHIANA vs. ITO, W-5(2), LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

u/s 271 (1) ( c) .That is clearly not the intention of legislature it is further submitted that the assessee is a honest tax payer and has been cooperating in assessment proceeding for the last several years. He further relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana high court in the case of CIT vs Ajaib Singh & co. (2002) 253

ACIT, CIRCLE, PANCHKULA vs. M/S HIMALAYAN EXPRESSWAY LTD., PINJORE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2013-14

5. The Assessing Officer levied penalty on this disallowance of depreciation claimed by the assessee by invoking the judgments of various Courts namely MAK Data Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT 358 ITR 593 (Del), CIT Vs. Shri Krishna Trading Co. 253 ITR 645, K.P. Madhusoodan Vs. CIT 251 ITR 1999. 6. The Ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition based

CHANDIGARH HOUSING BOARD,CHANDIGARH vs. PR.CIT-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the Appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ANDSHRI PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

253 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The assessee is aggrieved by the order dated 22.11.2018 of the ld. CIT(A) passed in respect of appeal No. 10085/17-18/A.Y. 2014-15 which is hereinafter referred to as the “Impugned Order”. ITA 126/CHD/2019 ITA 103/CHD/2019 ITA 125/CHD/2019 ITA 44/CHD/2021 3 3. The core issue before the ld. CIT(A) and before

CHANDIGARH HOUSING BOARD,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, C-1(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the Appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ANDSHRI PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

253 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The assessee is aggrieved by the order dated 22.11.2018 of the ld. CIT(A) passed in respect of appeal No. 10085/17-18/A.Y. 2014-15 which is hereinafter referred to as the “Impugned Order”. ITA 126/CHD/2019 ITA 103/CHD/2019 ITA 125/CHD/2019 ITA 44/CHD/2021 3 3. The core issue before the ld. CIT(A) and before

CHANDIGARH HOUSING BOARD,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, C-1(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the Appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ANDSHRI PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

253 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The assessee is aggrieved by the order dated 22.11.2018 of the ld. CIT(A) passed in respect of appeal No. 10085/17-18/A.Y. 2014-15 which is hereinafter referred to as the “Impugned Order”. ITA 126/CHD/2019 ITA 103/CHD/2019 ITA 125/CHD/2019 ITA 44/CHD/2021 3 3. The core issue before the ld. CIT(A) and before

DCIT, C-1(1), CHANDIGARH vs. CHANDIGARH HOUSING BOARD, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the Appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ANDSHRI PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

253 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The assessee is aggrieved by the order dated 22.11.2018 of the ld. CIT(A) passed in respect of appeal No. 10085/17-18/A.Y. 2014-15 which is hereinafter referred to as the “Impugned Order”. ITA 126/CHD/2019 ITA 103/CHD/2019 ITA 125/CHD/2019 ITA 44/CHD/2021 3 3. The core issue before the ld. CIT(A) and before

SURINDER SINGH RYAIT,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-II, LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: This Tribunal. The Assesse Is Aggrieved By The Order Bearing Number: 09/It/Cit(A)-5/Ldh/2017-18 Dt. 29/08/2019 Passed Under Section 154 Of The Act Which Is Hereinafter Referred To As The “Impugned Order”. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2015-16 & The Corresponding Previous Year Period Is From 01/04/2014 To 31/03/2015. 2. Factual Matrix 2.1 That By An Order In First Appeal Bearing Number 09/It/Cit(A)- 5/Ldh/2017-18 Dt. 21/12/2018 The Ld. Cit(A) In Terms Of Section 250(6) Of The Act Had Allowed The Appeal Of The Assessee Against The Penalty Order Dt. 12/05/2017 Wherein Penalty Of Rs. 12,30,000/- Was Imposed On 2 The Assessee U/S 271Aab(1)(A). The 1St Appeal Of The Assessee Was Thus

253 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for sake of brevity and ease) before this Tribunal. The assesse is aggrieved by the order bearing number: 09/IT/CIT(A)-5/LDH/2017-18 dt. 29/08/2019 passed under section 154 of the Act which is hereinafter referred to as the “impugned order”. The relevant Assessment Year

RAM KUMAR,NEHRU GARDEN COLONY vs. ITO WARD 2, KAITHAL

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

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

5,56,200/- was imposed under section 271(1) of the Act. 28. The assessee being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of Ld. AO dt. 26/06/2019 exercised his right of first appeal and preferred first appeal before Ld. CIT(A) who by an order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1061111793(1) dt. 19/02/2024 passed in terms of section 250 of the Act has sustained

RAM KUMAR,NEHRU GARDEN COLONY vs. ITO WARD 2 KAITHAL, AAYKAR BHAWAN, AMBALA ROAD KAITHAL

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

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

5,56,200/- was imposed under section 271(1) of the Act. 28. The assessee being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of Ld. AO dt. 26/06/2019 exercised his right of first appeal and preferred first appeal before Ld. CIT(A) who by an order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1061111793(1) dt. 19/02/2024 passed in terms of section 250 of the Act has sustained

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

253 contemplates that the Tribunal may admit an appeal or permit filing of memorandum of cross- objections after expiry of relevant period, if it is satisfied that there was a sufficient cause for not presenting it within that period. This expression sufficient cause employed in the section has also been used identically in sub-section 3 of section

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

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

JAGROOP SINGH,BARNALA vs. ITO, W-1, BARNALA

In the result, the appeal filed by the appellant is treated as dismissed

Bench: This Tribunal. The Assessee Is Aggrieved By The Order Bearing No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/105946628(1) Dt. 08/01/2024 Passed By The Cit(A) Under Section 250(6) Of The Act Which Is Hereinafter Referred To As The “Impugned Order”. The Relevant A.Y. Is 2012-13 & The Corresponding Previous Year Period Is From 01/04/2011 To 31/03/2012. 2. Factual Matrix

253 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) before this Tribunal. The assessee is aggrieved by the order bearing No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/105946628(1) dt. 08/01/2024 passed by the CIT(A) under section 250(6) of the Act which is hereinafter referred to as the “impugned order”. The relevant A.Y. is 2012-13 and the corresponding previous

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

253 contemplates that the Tribunal may admit an appeal or permit filing of memorandum of cross- objections after expiry of relevant period, if it is satisfied that there was a sufficient cause for not presenting ITA No.992 & 993/CHD/2024 & CO 46 & 45/CHD/2024 A.Y.2017-18 & 2016-17 3 it within that period. This expression sufficient cause employed in the section has also been