HARYANA BUILDING AND OTHER CONSTRUCTION WORKERS WELFARE BOARD,PANCHKULA vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), CHANDIGARH

In the result, this appeal of the Assessee stands dismissed

section 10(46), the Appellant's receipts are\nnot liable to tax. Its activities are inherently charitable, and the cess received\nforms part of corpus funds dedicated to public welfare. Accordingly, no part of\nits income can be brought to tax under the Act.\n\n3 Whether reassessment

HARYANA BUILDING AND OTHER CONSTRUCTION WORKERS WELFARE BOARD,PANCHKULA vs. DCIT, EXEMPTION, CHANDIGARH

In the result, this appeal of the Assessee stands dismissed

section 10(46), the Appellant's receipts are\nnot liable to tax. Its activities are inherently charitable, and the cess received\nforms part of corpus funds dedicated to public welfare. Accordingly, no part of\nits income can be brought to tax under the Act.\n\n3 Whether reassessment

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)

reassessment under section 147 of the Act has abated, needless to state that the scope and ambit of the assessment would include any order which the Assessing Officer could have passed under section 147 of the Act as well as under section 153A of the Act." 8. For the reasons stated hereinbelow, we are in complete agreement with the view

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)

reassessment under section 147 of the Act has abated, needless to state that the scope and ambit of the assessment would include any order which the Assessing Officer could have passed under section 147 of the Act as well as under section 153A of the Act." 8. For the reasons stated hereinbelow, we are in complete agreement with the view

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)

reassessment under section 147 of the Act has abated, needless to state that the scope and ambit of the assessment would include any order which the Assessing Officer could have passed under section 147 of the Act as well as under section 153A of the Act." 8. For the reasons stated hereinbelow, we are in complete agreement with the view

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)

reassessment under section 147 of the Act has abated, needless to state that the scope and ambit of the assessment would include any order which the Assessing Officer could have passed under section 147 of the Act as well as under section 153A of the Act." 8. For the reasons stated hereinbelow, we are in complete agreement with the view

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)

reassessment under section 147 of the Act has abated, needless to state that the scope and ambit of the assessment would include any order which the Assessing Officer could have passed under section 147 of the Act as well as under section 153A of the Act." 8. For the reasons stated hereinbelow, we are in complete agreement with the view

M/S JAIN AMAR CLOTHING PVT. LTD.,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)

reassessment under section 147 of the Act has abated, needless to state that the scope and ambit of the assessment would include any order which the Assessing Officer could have passed under section 147 of the Act as well as under section 153A of the Act." 8. For the reasons stated hereinbelow, we are in complete agreement with the view

BEE GEE CONSTRUCTION CO,ZIRAKPUR vs. ACIT, CIR-3(1), CHANDIGARH

The appeal stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

reassessment proceedings. The assessee failed to file the completion certificate. In terms of Explanation (ii) to sub-section (10) of Sec. 80(IB), the date

BEE GEE CONSTRUCTION CO,ZIRAKPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 3(1), CHANDIGARH

The appeal stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

reassessment proceedings. The assessee failed to file the completion certificate. In terms of Explanation (ii) to sub-section (10) of Sec. 80(IB), the date

SHRI MOHAN LAL GUPTA,SHIMLA vs. PR.CIT-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

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

reassessment order so passed under section 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act, the AO brought to tax capital gains on sale of the land and super structure situated in Mohal Bakhai Tehsil Shimla amounting to Rs. 2,36,10

SHRI ABHISHEK SOIN,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-II, LUDHIANA

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 321 & 322/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11, 2011-12 Shri Abhishek Soin, The Dcit, C/O Sigma Cartons Pvt. Ltd., Vs Central Circle-Ii, Unit-Ii, Industrial Area-C, Ludhiana. Sua Road, Ludhiana. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Anbps9446A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Aditya Kumar, Ca Revenue By : Shri Manav Bansal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 03.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.07.2025 Hybrid Hearing O R D E R

10 4. Judgement of the Hon'ble ITAT, Delhi in the case of Pooja Ajmani Vs. ITO (ITA 5714/Delhi/2018) 5. Judgement of the Hon'ble ITAT, Delhi in the case of Sangeeta devi Jhunjhunwala Vs. ITO (ITA 747/Delhi/2022) 17.2 He submitted that transactions of the assessee are bogus and therefore, AO has rightly made the addition. 18. We have duly

SHRI ABHISHEK SOIN,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-II, LUDHIANA

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 321 & 322/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11, 2011-12 Shri Abhishek Soin, The Dcit, C/O Sigma Cartons Pvt. Ltd., Vs Central Circle-Ii, Unit-Ii, Industrial Area-C, Ludhiana. Sua Road, Ludhiana. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Anbps9446A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Aditya Kumar, Ca Revenue By : Shri Manav Bansal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 03.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.07.2025 Hybrid Hearing O R D E R

10 4. Judgement of the Hon'ble ITAT, Delhi in the case of Pooja Ajmani Vs. ITO (ITA 5714/Delhi/2018) 5. Judgement of the Hon'ble ITAT, Delhi in the case of Sangeeta devi Jhunjhunwala Vs. ITO (ITA 747/Delhi/2022) 17.2 He submitted that transactions of the assessee are bogus and therefore, AO has rightly made the addition. 18. We have duly

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)

reassessment proceedings under section 147 vide letter dt. 19/12/2018 which were disposed off by the AO by passing a separate order dt. 19/12/2018. Thereafter, after issuance of notice under section 143(2) and 142(1) and after calling for necessary information and documentation as well as issue of specific show cause notice, the AO made an addition

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

10 12.2 Thereafter, ld. AO confronted the assessee to submit details on six counts which has been submitted by the assessee and brief summary of such details has been reproduced by him on page No. 3. The AO thereafter observed that he has issued notice under Section 133 sub-section (6) on 23.11.2017 from Calcutta Stock Exchange as also

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)

10. impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) is correct and that it has been rightly held that the reassessment order dt. 27/09/2021 is bad in law for reasons as under: (a) No escapement of income – reassessment proceedings without jurisdiction and illegal. (b) No fresh / tangible material to reopen the closed assessment and proceedings initiated merely on the basis

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)

10- 10.11 in 315 ITR 1 was pronounced on 16.07.2009 i.e. post Finance Bill 2009 was proposed (i.e. in February 2009) and which also proves that amendment vide Finance (No.2) Act was introduced to nullify the effect of Hon'ble Supreme Court's ruling in the case of Rama Bai reported in 181 ITR 400 and not Ghanshyam HUF reported

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)

10- 10.11 in 315 ITR 1 was pronounced on 16.07.2009 i.e. post Finance Bill 2009 was proposed (i.e. in February 2009) and which also proves that amendment vide Finance (No.2) Act was introduced to nullify the effect of Hon'ble Supreme Court's ruling in the case of Rama Bai reported in 181 ITR 400 and not Ghanshyam HUF reported