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

In the result, this appeal of the Assessee stands dismissed

26-41.\n\n3. 3. In the case of the appellant-Board, exemption under Section 12AA had\nalready been granted vide ITAT, Chandigarh order dated 23.09.2009,\nrecognizing its welfare-oriented functions.\n\nSubsequent to the coming into force of Section 10(46), statutory bodies\nacross India, including the present appellant, sought exemption under this\nspecial provision. Accordingly, the appellant made

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

In the result, this appeal of the Assessee stands dismissed

26-41.\n\n3. 3. In the case of the appellant-Board, exemption under Section 12AA had\nalready been granted vide ITAT, Chandigarh order dated 23.09.2009,\nrecognizing its welfare-oriented functions.\n\nSubsequent to the coming into force of Section 10(46), statutory bodies\nacross India, including the present appellant, sought exemption under this\nspecial provision. Accordingly, the appellant made

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)

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 years

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 years

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)

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 years

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 years

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 years

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 years

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

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)

10. As we have noted above, the assessee has challenged the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) in respect of assumption of jurisdiction under section 147 of the Act. Both the parties fairly submitted and it was also deemed appropriate that the said grounds of appeal be taken up first for adjudication, thereafter, the merit of the addition so sustained

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

26-05-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 17-06-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) 1. These are quantum appeal as well as penalty appeal by the assessee for Assessment Year (AY) 2012-13. First, we take up quantum appeal ITA No.598/Chandi/2024 which arises out of an order of learned Commissioner of Income

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

26-05-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 17-06-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) 1. These are quantum appeal as well as penalty appeal by the assessee for Assessment Year (AY) 2012-13. First, we take up quantum appeal ITA No.598/Chandi/2024 which arises out of an order of learned Commissioner of Income

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)

10,000/- and after allowing transfer expenses of Rs. 27,00,000/- and index cost including CLU expenses and after allowing deduction under section 54F amounting to Rs. 37,00,000/- on purchase of Flat at Panchkula, the Long Term Capital Gains were determined at Rs. 1,57,62,283/-. Therefore, as far as matter pertaining to transfer expenses

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 HUF reported

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 HUF reported

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

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 HUF reported

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 HUF reported