SH. S.L. ARORA,MOHALI vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeals of the assessee bearing

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

reassessment, as the case may be, is less than sixty days, such remaining period shall be extended to sixty days and the aforesaid period of limitation shall be deemed to be extended accordingly. (2) ………” 8. The contention of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee in this case has been that the assessment order framed in this case is invalid being

SH.SOHAN LAL ARORA,MOHALI vs. ACIT, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeals of the assessee bearing

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

reassessment, as the case may be, is less than sixty days, such remaining period shall be extended to sixty days and the aforesaid period of limitation shall be deemed to be extended accordingly. (2) ………” 8. The contention of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee in this case has been that the assessment order framed in this case is invalid being

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. S.L. ARORA, MOHALI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee bearing

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

reassessment, as the case may be, is less than sixty days, such remaining period shall be extended to sixty days and the aforesaid period of limitation shall be deemed to be extended accordingly. (2) ………” 8. The contention of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee in this case has been that the assessment order framed in this case is invalid being

M/S APEEJAY EDUCATION SOCIETY,JALANDHAR vs. DCIT, C-1 (EXEMPTIONS), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

natural justice has been followed to the hilt. Documents were asked from the assessee u/s 142(1) for the purpose of reassessment

ASTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, LUDHIANA, AAYAKAR BHAWAN vs. WARYAM STEEL CASTING PRIVATE LIMITED, KANGANWAL ROAD

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

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

reassessment proceedings have not been provided. 2. That the order dated 10.05.2024 passed u/s 250 of the Act by the National faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC). Delhi is against law and (acts on the (lie in as much as he was not justified to uphold the action of the Ld. Assessing Officer. Assessment Unit. Income Tax Department in restricting the addition

WARYAM STEEL CASTINGS PRIVATE LIMITED,LUDHIANA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, LUDHIANA

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

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

reassessment proceedings have not been provided. 2. That the order dated 10.05.2024 passed u/s 250 of the Act by the National faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC). Delhi is against law and (acts on the (lie in as much as he was not justified to uphold the action of the Ld. Assessing Officer. Assessment Unit. Income Tax Department in restricting the addition

RAJESH KHANNA,NEELKANTH PLYWOOD, YAMUNANAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3, INCOME TAX OFFICER, YAMUNANAGAR

In the result, the assessee's appeal in ITA

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

natural justice. It is therefore again requested to provide the following information: a. Copy of impounded material in form of Tally data and other documents seized from premises of Shiv Shankar Plywood and Veener House on basis of which it is concluded that assessee only recorded 47.38% sales in its books of accounts. b. Copy of documents and evidences

INCOME TAX OFFICER, YAMUNA NAGAR vs. RAJESH KHANNA, YAMUNA NAGAR

In the result, the assessee's appeal in ITA

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

natural justice. It is therefore again requested to provide the following information: a. Copy of impounded material in form of Tally data and other documents seized from premises of Shiv Shankar Plywood and Veener House on basis of which it is concluded that assessee only recorded 47.38% sales in its books of accounts. b. Copy of documents and evidences

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

natural justice is mistress and not the master of justice and it is used to support the cause of justice and can never be used to defeat the cause of justice. The A.O. was of the view that the cross examination is required to support the cause of justice and can never be used to defeat the cause of justice

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

natural justice is mistress and not the master of justice and it is used to support the cause of justice and can never be used to defeat the cause of justice. The A.O. was of the view that the cross examination is required to support the cause of justice and can never be used to defeat the cause of justice

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

natural justice is mistress and not the master of justice and it is used to support the cause of justice and can never be used to defeat the cause of justice. The A.O. was of the view that the cross examination is required to support the cause of justice and can never be used to defeat the cause of justice

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

natural justice is mistress and not the master of justice and it is used to support the cause of justice and can never be used to defeat the cause of justice. The A.O. was of the view that the cross examination is required to support the cause of justice and can never be used to defeat the cause of justice

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

natural justice is mistress and not the master of justice and it is used to support the cause of justice and can never be used to defeat the cause of justice. The A.O. was of the view that the cross examination is required to support the cause of justice and can never be used to defeat the cause of justice

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

natural justice is mistress and not the master of justice and it is used to support the cause of justice and can never be used to defeat the cause of justice. The A.O. was of the view that the cross examination is required to support the cause of justice and can never be used to defeat the cause of justice

ITO, W-4(2), LUDHIANA vs. M/S SWARAN FASTNERS, LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed

justice. On careful consideration of the rival contentions, I am of the opinion that the assessee firm has explained even the source of source in respect of the amount received from Sh. Ankush Gupta by producing copy of NRE account of Sh. Puneet Gupta and copies of bank account of Sh. AkashBansal. On perusal of the bank accounts

JAMYANG KHYENTSE YESHI,KANGRA, HIMACHAL PRADESH vs. ACIT, DCIT, C.R. BUILDING, CHANDIGARH

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A). The Ld. Cit(A), After Calling For A Remand Report Under Rule 46A, Recorded The Following Findings (Para 5.1 To 5.5 Of The Appellate Order):

reassessment was bad in law and in procedure. 5. That the order passed by LD.AO, was erroneous, illegal and against the principles of natural justice

AMARJIT SINGH,LUDHIANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD 6(1) LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA

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

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 1171 /Chd/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Shri Amarjit Singh बनाम The ITO C/o V V Bhalla & Company Ward 6(1) SCF-39, Rishi Nagar Main Market, Ludhiana Adjoining Subway, Ludhiana-141001, Punjab स्थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: ABTPS8558B अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by : Shri Pankaj Bhalla, C.A राजस्व की ओर से/ Revenue by : Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr

natural justice and deprived the assessee of an effective opportunity to present his case. The Ld. AR further submitted that the reassessment

M/S KUNAL CALCIUM LIMITED,YAMUNANAGAR vs. DCIT, YAMUNANAGAR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

reassess the income for A.Y. 2009-10.” 5 . R e f e r r i n g t o t