SH. VIBHAV JAIN,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-III, LUDHIANA

In the result, the ground no

Bench: SHRI. SANJAY GARG (Judicial Member), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

income declared in the return. In case no incriminating material is unearthed during the search, the AO cannot reassess taking into consideration the other material in respect of completed assessments/unabated assessments. 20. In the instant case, search and seizure operations were carried at the business

SH. ASHISH JAIN,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-III, LUDHIANA

In the result, the ground no

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

income declared in the return. In case no incriminating material is unearthed during the search, the AO cannot reassess taking into consideration the other material in respect of completed assessments/unabated assessments. 20. In the instant case, search and seizure operations were carried at the business

SH. BIPAN JAIN,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-III, LUDHIANA

In the result, the ground no

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

income declared in the return. In case no incriminating material is unearthed during the search, the AO cannot reassess taking into consideration the other material in respect of completed assessments/unabated assessments. 20. In the instant case, search and seizure operations were carried at the business

SH. AKHIL JAIN,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-III, LUDHIANA

In the result, the ground no

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

income declared in the return. In case no incriminating material is unearthed during the search, the AO cannot reassess taking into consideration the other material in respect of completed assessments/unabated assessments. 20. In the instant case, search and seizure operations were carried at the business

SH. ASHISH JAIN,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-III, LUDHIANA

In the result, the ground no

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

income declared in the return. In case no incriminating material is unearthed during the search, the AO cannot reassess taking into consideration the other material in respect of completed assessments/unabated assessments. 20. In the instant case, search and seizure operations were carried at the business

M/S BROOKS LABORATORIES LTD.,BADDI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE, PANCHKULA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

income of Rs. 8,37,19,897/- which include an amount of Rs. 92,22,575/- on account of interest on FDR’s and miscellaneous receipt which was not directly attributable to the manufacturing activity and therefore the excess deduction of Rs. 27,66,772/- being 30% of Rs. 92,22,575/- has escaped assessment. During the course of reassessment

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHANDIGARH vs. WINSOME TEXTILE INDUSTRIES LTD, CHANDIGARH

business of\nmanufacturing and sale of yarn. During the year under consideration the\nassessee company had filed return of income on 28.09.2011 declaring current\nyear profit of Rs.21,05,09,768/- which was further set off against brought forward\nlosses. This return was processed under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961\n(in short

ACIT, CIRCLE 1(1), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S SML ISUZU LTD., CHANDIGARH

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

business of manufacturing of commercial vehicles and is a public limited company. For the year under consideration which is A.Y. 2015-16 and the corresponding previous year period is from 01/04/2014 to 31/03/2015, the assessee company filed its return of income on 30/11/2015 declaring income of Rs. 52,39,32,000/-. 5. The original assessment proceedings in the case

WINSOME TEXTILE INDUSTRIES LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1), CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for any assessment year, he may, subject to the provisions of sections 148 to 153, assess or reassess such income and also any other income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment and which comes to his notice subsequently in the course of the proceeding under section 147, or recompute the loss

SHRI SATISH SOIN,LUDHIANA vs. ACIT, CC-II, LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 303/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Shri Satish Soin, बनाम The Acit, House No.31, Garden Enclave, Central Circle-2, Vs South City-Ii, Ludhiana. Ludhiana. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan /Tan No: Advps6254N अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Ashwani Kumar & Ms. Muskan Garg, Cas राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Smt. Kusum Bansal, Cit Dr तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 26.05.2025 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.07.2025 Hybrid Hearing आदेश/Order Per Rajpal Yadav, Vp

business run by them came under financial crunch and insolvency proceedings were initiated against them. It has been further pleaded that due to this hardship, lots of record was misplaced and they could not lay their hand on the complete record for filing the appeals. According to the assessee, this situation led the appeals to become time barred. The assessees

SH. SANJAY SINGAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

business activities of such investors etc. coupled with the fact that the assessee failed to produce the investor for examination could safely lead to conclusion that share capital / premium received from companies against which there was no direct evidence was also taxable under section 68. The reliance was placed on the following case laws: • Sumati Dayal

SMT. AARTI SINGAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

business activities of such investors etc. coupled with the fact that the assessee failed to produce the investor for examination could safely lead to conclusion that share capital / premium received from companies against which there was no direct evidence was also taxable under section 68. The reliance was placed on the following case laws: • Sumati Dayal

SMT. AARTI SINGAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

business activities of such investors etc. coupled with the fact that the assessee failed to produce the investor for examination could safely lead to conclusion that share capital / premium received from companies against which there was no direct evidence was also taxable under section 68. The reliance was placed on the following case laws: • Sumati Dayal

SMT. AARTI SINGAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

business activities of such investors etc. coupled with the fact that the assessee failed to produce the investor for examination could safely lead to conclusion that share capital / premium received from companies against which there was no direct evidence was also taxable under section 68. The reliance was placed on the following case laws: • Sumati Dayal

SH. SANJAY SINGAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

business activities of such investors etc. coupled with the fact that the assessee failed to produce the investor for examination could safely lead to conclusion that share capital / premium received from companies against which there was no direct evidence was also taxable under section 68. The reliance was placed on the following case laws: • Sumati Dayal

SH. SANJAY SINGAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

business activities of such investors etc. coupled with the fact that the assessee failed to produce the investor for examination could safely lead to conclusion that share capital / premium received from companies against which there was no direct evidence was also taxable under section 68. The reliance was placed on the following case laws: • Sumati Dayal

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA vs. AMARJIT SINGH , BATHINDA

In the result, Cross Objections of the assessee

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahay

reassessment pursuant to a search operation is detection of undisclosed income. In fact, the initiation of search proceeding is also based on possession of information and reason to believe that a person is in possession of certain valuable assets, which has not been or would not be disclosed under the Act. The same is nothing but 'undisclosed income' as defined

M/S PNG TRADING PRIVATE LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all four appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

business premises, the residential premises of the Director was also covered under search. The AO has issued a notice under Section 153A and in response to that notice, assessee has filed its return of income on 10.09.2012 declaring total income at ‘nil’. A notice under Section 143(2) was issued and served upon the assessee. The ld. AO has observed