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)

10. On a plain reading of Section 153A of the Act, 1961, it is evident that once search or requisition is made, a mandate is cast upon the AO to issue notice under section 153 of the Act to the person, requiring him to furnish the return of income in respect of each assessment year falling within six assessment

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)

10. On a plain reading of Section 153A of the Act, 1961, it is evident that once search or requisition is made, a mandate is cast upon the AO to issue notice under section 153 of the Act to the person, requiring him to furnish the return of income in respect of each assessment year falling within six assessment

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)

10. On a plain reading of Section 153A of the Act, 1961, it is evident that once search or requisition is made, a mandate is cast upon the AO to issue notice under section 153 of the Act to the person, requiring him to furnish the return of income in respect of each assessment year falling within six assessment

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)

10. On a plain reading of Section 153A of the Act, 1961, it is evident that once search or requisition is made, a mandate is cast upon the AO to issue notice under section 153 of the Act to the person, requiring him to furnish the return of income in respect of each assessment year falling within six assessment

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

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)

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

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)

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

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

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)

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

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)

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

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)

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

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

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

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

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

10. That on the law, facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned assessment deserves to be quashed having been passed beyond the limitation period prescribed u/s 153 since the appointment of Special auditor u/s 142(2A) is illegal and therefore, the period for assessment could not have been extended." 3. The Ld. Counsel for the assessees has submitted

SH. RAJIV KUMAR,MOHALI vs. ACIT, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeals of the assessee bearing

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

10. That on the law, facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned assessment deserves to be quashed having been passed beyond the limitation period prescribed u/s 153 since the appointment of Special auditor u/s 142(2A) is illegal and therefore, the period for assessment could not have been extended." 3. The Ld. Counsel for the assessees has submitted

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

10. That on the law, facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned assessment deserves to be quashed having been passed beyond the limitation period prescribed u/s 153 since the appointment of Special auditor u/s 142(2A) is illegal and therefore, the period for assessment could not have been extended." 3. The Ld. Counsel for the assessees has submitted