HYCRON ELECTRONICS vs. DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

282 Dividend Received 10,50,047 Foreign Exchange Fluctuation 7,99,987 Miscellaneous Receipt 1,14,089 Sundry Credit balances written back 99 A further addition of Rs.5,55,241/- was made by disallowing the expense claimed against exempt income u/s 14A. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) were also initiated w.r.t. all the above referred restriction in deduction claimed

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| | 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| | 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. SHAMBHU KUMAR,LUDHIANA vs. ACIT, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed, whereas,

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sanjay Gargआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 957/Chd/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2000-01 Shri Shambhu Kumar, Vs. The Acit, Circle-V, Prop.M/S Jindal Alloys, Ludhiana बनाम Kanganwal Road, Vpo Juugiana, Ludhiana "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Aihpk8666P अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

282(1) of the Act, is a mandatory legal requirement. The Ld. counsel in this respect has relied upon the following case laws:- 1. Commissioner of Income Tax V/s Eqbal Singh Sindhana 304 ITR 177 DEL-HC 2. Commissioner of Income V/s Hotline International (P) Ltd. 296 ITR 333 DEL-HC 3. Heaven Distillery Pvt. Ltd, V/s Income Tax Office

DCIT, C-5, LUDHIANA vs. SHRI SHAMBHU KUMAR, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed, whereas,

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sanjay Gargआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 957/Chd/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2000-01 Shri Shambhu Kumar, Vs. The Acit, Circle-V, Prop.M/S Jindal Alloys, Ludhiana बनाम Kanganwal Road, Vpo Juugiana, Ludhiana "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Aihpk8666P अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

282(1) of the Act, is a mandatory legal requirement. The Ld. counsel in this respect has relied upon the following case laws:- 1. Commissioner of Income Tax V/s Eqbal Singh Sindhana 304 ITR 177 DEL-HC 2. Commissioner of Income V/s Hotline International (P) Ltd. 296 ITR 333 DEL-HC 3. Heaven Distillery Pvt. Ltd, V/s Income Tax Office

DCIT, C-3, LUDHIANA vs. SH. SHAMBHU KUMAR, JUGIANA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed, whereas,

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sanjay Gargआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 957/Chd/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2000-01 Shri Shambhu Kumar, Vs. The Acit, Circle-V, Prop.M/S Jindal Alloys, Ludhiana बनाम Kanganwal Road, Vpo Juugiana, Ludhiana "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Aihpk8666P अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

282(1) of the Act, is a mandatory legal requirement. The Ld. counsel in this respect has relied upon the following case laws:- 1. Commissioner of Income Tax V/s Eqbal Singh Sindhana 304 ITR 177 DEL-HC 2. Commissioner of Income V/s Hotline International (P) Ltd. 296 ITR 333 DEL-HC 3. Heaven Distillery Pvt. Ltd, V/s Income Tax Office

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)

Penalty u/s 271 (1) (c ) of the Income Tax Act is also initiated for filing inaccurate particular of income and for concealing income. 28. That the Ld. AO also has given finding on presuming that assessee is engaged in the business of manufacturing activities : “Although it has been well established that the assessee was not engaged in the manufacturing

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)

Penalty u/s 271 (1) (c ) of the Income Tax Act is also initiated for filing inaccurate particular of income and for concealing income. 28. That the Ld. AO also has given finding on presuming that assessee is engaged in the business of manufacturing activities : “Although it has been well established that the assessee was not engaged in the manufacturing

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)

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

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)

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

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. 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)

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. 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)

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

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)

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

M/S SATWANT AGRO ENGINEERS,BHAWANIGARH vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, PATIALA

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

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

Penalty proceedings are initiated u/s 271AAC of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The AR has also submitted that the addition in the partner's capita! account of Rs. 50 lacs should be considered as explained under the unaccounted sales transactions of Rs. 42.80 lacs in the impounded documents and other discrepancies of Rs. 7.2 lacs found during the course