SHRI DINESH SETHI,LUDHIANA vs. ITO, LUDHIANA

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 376/Chd/2014 & "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07 Shri Janesh Sethi, Legal Heir Of बनाम The Ito, Late Shri Dinesh Sethi, Ward – 1(1), Vs Prop. M/S R.S. Trading Corp., Ludhiana. C-434, Urban Estate Focal Point, Ludhiana. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan /Tan No: Aaqpk1200Q अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Manav Bansal, Cit Dr तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 23.06.2025 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 04.8.2025

penalty order passed u/s 271(1)(c) vide order dated 25.06.2009 against whom appeal has been dismissed by the CIT (Appeals) by way of the impugned order). 2. It has been brought to our notice that assessee Shri Dinesh Sethi has died on 14.02.2024. Death Certificate of the assessee has been annexed by the ld. counsel for the assessee

SHIMLA MEDICOS,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT-CC-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri R.L Negi

section 143(3) of the Act (for short ‘the Act’) and vide second order the Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal file by the assessee ITA Nos. 302 & 303-c-20- Shimla Medicos, Chandigarh 2 against the penalty order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 271

M/S SHIMLA MEDICOS,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT-CC-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri R.L Negi

section 143(3) of the Act (for short ‘the Act’) and vide second order the Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal file by the assessee ITA Nos. 302 & 303-c-20- Shimla Medicos, Chandigarh 2 against the penalty order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 271

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)

302 CTR 458 (SC) UOI vs. Hari Singh and Ors. v) C.A.No. 18475/2017 dated 10.11.2017 ITO v. Muktanandgiri Maheshgiri 3. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tаx (Appeals) has further erred both in law and on fact in sustaining the view taken by learned Assessing Officer of making addition by invoking section 56(2)(viii) read with section

BAHADUR SINGH ,ZIRAKPUR vs. ITO WARD 3(5), CHANDIGARH

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

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

302 ITR 173. Therefore, it is not required to give further opportunity to such recalcitrant assessee 5.2 The section 114(g) of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 lays a presumption that evidence which could be and is not produced, would, if produced, be unfavourable to the person who withholds it. In the appellate proceedings, burden of proof lies on the Assessee

GURDISH KAUR KHULAR,JALANDHAR vs. ACIT( INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRCLE, CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

penalty u/s 271(l)(c) of the Act. Aggrieved by the order assessee preferred appeal before the worthy CIT(A)-42, New Delhi. GROUND: 2 That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. AO has erred in law and on facts in framing the impugned assessment order u/s 144 r.w.s.147 and without complying with the mandatory

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)

302 CTR 458 (SC) UOI vs. Hari Singh and Ors. x) C.A.No. 18475/2017 dated 10.11.2017 ITO v. Muktanandgiri Maheshgiri 9. That invocation of provision of section 145A(b) of the Act is not in accordance with law as it is not applicable in year under consideration and therefore is without jurisdiction. 10. That the learned Principal Commissioner of Income

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)

302 CTR 458 (SC) UOI vs. Hari Singh and Ors. x) C.A.No. 18475/2017 dated 10.11.2017 ITO v. Muktanandgiri Maheshgiri 9. That invocation of provision of section 145A(b) of the Act is not in accordance with law as it is not applicable in year under consideration and therefore is without jurisdiction. 10. That the learned Principal Commissioner of Income

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)

302 CTR 458 (SC) UOI vs. Hari Singh and Ors. x) C.A.No. 18475/2017 dated 10.11.2017 ITO v. Muktanandgiri Maheshgiri 9. That invocation of provision of section 145A(b) of the Act is not in accordance with law as it is not applicable in year under consideration and therefore is without jurisdiction. 10. That the learned Principal Commissioner of Income

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)

302 CTR 458 (SC) UOI vs. Hari Singh and Ors. x) C.A.No. 18475/2017 dated 10.11.2017 ITO v. Muktanandgiri Maheshgiri 9. That invocation of provision of section 145A(b) of the Act is not in accordance with law as it is not applicable in year under consideration and therefore is without jurisdiction. 10. That the learned Principal Commissioner of Income

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)

302 CTR 458 (SC) UOI vs. Hari Singh and Ors. x) C.A.No. 18475/2017 dated 10.11.2017 ITO v. Muktanandgiri Maheshgiri 9. That invocation of provision of section 145A(b) of the Act is not in accordance with law as it is not applicable in year under consideration and therefore is without jurisdiction. 10. That the learned Principal Commissioner of Income

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)

302 CTR 458 (SC) UOI vs. Hari Singh and Ors. x) C.A.No. 18475/2017 dated 10.11.2017 ITO v. Muktanandgiri Maheshgiri 9. That invocation of provision of section 145A(b) of the Act is not in accordance with law as it is not applicable in year under consideration and therefore is without jurisdiction. 10. That the learned Principal Commissioner of Income

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)

302 CTR 458 (SC) UOI vs. Hari Singh and Ors. x) C.A.No. 18475/2017 dated 10.11.2017 ITO v. Muktanandgiri Maheshgiri 9. That invocation of provision of section 145A(b) of the Act is not in accordance with law as it is not applicable in year under consideration and therefore is without jurisdiction. 10. That the learned Principal Commissioner of Income