M/S VISION COMMODITIES & DERIVATIVES PVT. LTD.,LUDHIANA vs. ITO, LUDHIANA

In the result, all the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Her. 4. That The Appellant Craves To Amend, Add, Delete Or Supplement Bring Additional Evidence On Grounds Of Appeal Before The Appeal Is Finally Heard & Dispose Off.

u/s 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act. 3. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in not admitting evidence under Rule 46A of Income Tax Rules in appeal proceedings before her. 4. That the appellant craves to amend, add, delete or supplement bring additional evidence on grounds of appeal before the appeal is finally heard and dispose

SH. AMAN SETH,LUDHIANA vs. ITO, W-1(1), LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

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

penalty notice u/s 271 (1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 6. Being aggrieved by the AO order dt. 10/02/2015 (supra) the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who by an order dt. 05/06/2017 has sustained the additions. 7. The assessee being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of Ld. CIT(A) dt. 05/06/2017 has preferred

BALWANT SINGH DHINDSA, ADV. SO KARTAR SINGH, #185 STREET NO. 11, PUNIA COLONY, SANGRUR, PUNJAB,PUNJAB vs. ITO WARD SANGRUR, PUNJAB

In the result, appeal of the assessee is\ndismissed

46A despite\nassessment order being under Section 144. Be that as it\nmay, the ld. CIT(A) deals with 1st appeal basis\nsubmissions filed before him on 21.02.2024. In the said\nsubmission on page 14, it is averred that case of the\nassessee is reopened on the basis of AIR/CIB information\nregarding cash deposit in the bank and non filing

PAVITAR SINGH,JAGADHRI, YAMUNANAGAR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumarआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 653/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Pavitar Singh, Ito, बना 188, Vuillage Satgoli, Nwr-W-(65)(95) Bhagu Majra, Chandigarh म Jadadhri, Yamunanagar Vs. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Bteps4094J अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(b) of the IT act are initiated for non-compliance to notices u/s 142(1).” 4. Feeling aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the Assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) had dismissed the assessee's appeal for the reasons recorded in para 5.2.2. of his order which

DCIT, CIRCLE-3, LUDHIANA vs. M/S GANESHAY OVERSEAS INDUSTRIES LIMITED, CHANDIGARH

In the result, Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

penalty under section 271.]" 6.1 As per the above 'Sub-Rule (4)', the CIT(A) can independently examine or call for any information or make any enquiry as he may deem fit and his powers are coterminous with the powers of AO. Though the Assessing Officer did not respond to such sharing of information

MANJEET KAUR KAMBOJ,YAMUNA NAGAR HARYANA vs. ITO WARD-2, YAMUNA NAGAR HARYANA, YAMUNA NAGAR HARYANA

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumat & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 550/Chd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Manjit Kaur Kamboj, Ito Ward-2, Lotus Valley Public School, बनाम Yamuna Nagar, Sector – 18, Huda, Haryana Vs. Yamunanagar, Haryana "ायी लेखा सं./Pan No. Abmpk5213G अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ"/Respondent ( Physical Hearing ) िनधा""रती की ओर से/Assessee By : Ms. Meenal Goyal, Ca & Sh. Abhinav Jain, Adv. राज" की ओर से/ Revenue By : Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18.11.2025 उदघोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20.11.2025 आदेश/Order Shri Laliet Kumar: Appeal In This Case Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 21.03.2024 Of Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For A.Y. 2012-13. 2. Grounds Of Appeal, As Taken By The Assessee In Form 36, Are Reproduced As Under:

46A, placed before both authorities demonstrating that the land sold by the Appellant is a rural agricultural land and hence not a capital asset. 3 For that on the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned orders are unsustainable in law since the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the Ld. A.O. passed the 2nd impugned order without

SHRI PARDEEP KUMAR JAIN,ZIRAKPUR vs. ITO, W-2(3), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 190/Chd/2019 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Shri Pradeep Kumar Jain, The Ito, Ward 2(3), बनाम Chandigarh Flat No.222, Orbit Apartments, 6Th Floor, Zirakpur "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Advpj6719P अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

penalty proceedings u/s 271 (1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, that the assessee came to know about the passing of the appellate order. Thereafter, the assessee applied for certifiedof the order of the CIT(A) which was provided to him on 20.2.2019 and the appeal was filed immediately within the period of limitation. The above averments made

PAWAN KUMAR SINGLA,PANCHKULA vs. DCIT, CC-I, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the assessee’s appeal on the various grounds raised is dismissed

Bench: Final Hearing.

penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) for concealment of income and issued a demand notice with applicable interest. The assessment order was approved by the Addl. CIT under Section 153D of the Act. 5. Against the order of the AO the assessee went in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A).The Ld. CIT(A) addressed three key grounds

SMT. JAGJIT KAUR CHAWLA,MOHALI vs. DCIT, MOHALI

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

Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. That on law, facts and circumstances of the case, the Worthy CIT (A) was not justified in confirming the action of Ld. AO of addition of Rs. 5,90,976/- u/s 36(l)(iii) in respect of following parties with respective average daily balances : Name of the Party Average daily

PAWAN KUMAR SINGLA,PANCHKULA vs. DCIT, CC-I, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the assessee's appeal on the various grounds raised\nis dismissed

penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) for\nconcealment of income and issued a demand notice with\napplicable interest. The assessment order was approved by the Addl.\nCIT under Section 153D of the Act.\n5. Against the order of the AO the assessee went in appeal before\nthe Ld. CIT(A).The Ld. CIT(A) addressed three key grounds

SMT. SURINDER KAUR,LUDHIANA vs. ITO, LUDHIANA

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

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2007-08

271(1) (c ) is pertained, of the On the facts and in the Circumstances ,of the case and in law the Learned Commissioner of Income- tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the penalty. 3. That On the facts and in the Circumstances of the case and in law the Learned Commissioner of Income- tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming