DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, LUDHIANA , LUDHIANA vs. HOMELIFE BUILDCON PVT. LTD., LUDHIANA

In the result, Revenue appeal is dismissed and appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 880/Chd/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2021-22 Homelife Buildcon Private Limited Sunview Enclave, Ayali Kalan, Ludhiana, Punjab-142027 स्थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AABCH5690M अपीलार्थी/Appellant The DCIT Central Circle-1 Ludhiana, Punjab प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 1036/Chd/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2021-22 Homelife Buildcon Private Limited Sunview Enclave, Ayali Kalan, Lu

reassessment not only. procedurally defective but also without jurisdiction. 33. Even we find while framing the assessment under section 143(3), the Assessing Officer (AO) has, on the last page of the assessment order, referred to an approval obtained from the supervisory authority. However, a bare perusal of this approval 25 shows that it was obtained in reference

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)

reassess. But re-assessment has to be based on fulfillment of certain pre-conditions and if the concept of "change of opinion" is removed, as contended by the Revenue then, in the garb of re-opening the assessment, review would take place. One must treat the concept of "change of opinion" as an inbuilt test to check abuse of power

DCIT, CC-3, LUDHIANA, KITCHLU NAGAR vs. MANI RAM BALWANT RAI HUF, CIVIL LINES

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

131(1A) of the Act. 1.4 Consequent to the search, the case was centralized under section 127 of the Act with the DCIT, Central Circle-3, Ludhiana. 2. Assessment Proceedings 2.1 During assessment proceedings, various queries were raised and duly replied to by the assessee. However, the Ld. Assessing Officer completed the assessment under section 143(3) vide order dated

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)

Section 131 and physical inquiry conducted during the post search inquiry from 05/12/2016 to 08/12/2016 at Kolkata and the financial statements of the investor company as well as the shareholding pattern of the investor companies. There is nothing in the show-cause which remotely suggests that any incriminating material has been found and seized during the course of search relating

ACIT, CC-2, CHANDIGARH vs. M/S TJR PROPERTIES PVT. LTD., CHANDIGARH

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

reassessment proceedings under Sections 147 and 148 of the IT Act. However, as noted above, all contentions of all parties are kept open in this context." 18. It has been contended that the Assessing Officer has wrongly made addition u/s 153A(l)(b) r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act ITA 3 &144/CHD/2023 A.Y. 2014-15 15 on the direction

M/S TJR PROPERTIES PVT. LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. ACIT, CC-2, CHANDIGARH

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

reassessment proceedings under Sections 147 and 148 of the IT Act. However, as noted above, all contentions of all parties are kept open in this context." 18. It has been contended that the Assessing Officer has wrongly made addition u/s 153A(l)(b) r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act ITA 3 &144/CHD/2023 A.Y. 2014-15 15 on the direction

DCIT, C-1(1) , CHANDIGARH vs. M/S FIDELITY INFORMATION SERVICES INDIA PVT. LTD., CHANDIGARH

In the result, the cross-objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

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

131 of the paperbook. Thus, perusal of the same makes it evident that the revenue and income of the Assessee company is based on its cost. 9.4 It was submitted that the Assessee company is a cost-plus entity where all expenses are reimbursed with an additional mark-up and added to the revenue base of the company

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

In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed

131(1) before making any additions in the Returned income of the assessee's firm. e) Even the Order sheet entries are upto 19.02.2015 which itself proves that no question was asked by the A.O. during the proceedings before making any additions on this account, hence it clearly indicates that the additions on account of Partner Capital account

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, LUDHIANA , LUDHIANA vs. AB ALCOBEV PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, appeals of Revenue are dismissed, Cross\nObjections of the assessee for

131 of the\nIncome-tax Act, 1961, or a notice under sub-section (4) of Section\n22 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 or under sub-section (1) of\nSection 142 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is issued to Ajay Kumar\nBindal, Smt. Geeta Bindal AB Alcobev Pvt. Ltd., Homeland\nBuildwell Pvt. Ltd. (name of the person

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA vs. AB ALCOBEV PRIVATE LIMITED , DELHI

In the result, appeals of Revenue are dismissed, Cross\nObjections of the assessee for

131 of the\nIncome-tax Act, 1961, or a notice under sub-section (4) of Section\n22 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 or under sub-section (1) of\nSection 142 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is issued to Ajay Kumar\nBindal, Smt. Geeta Bindal AB Alcobev Pvt. Ltd., Homeland\nBuildwell Pvt. Ltd. (name of the person

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, LUDHIANA vs. AB ALCOBEV PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, appeals of Revenue are dismissed, Cross\nObjections of the assessee for

131 of the\nIncome-tax Act, 1961, or a notice under sub-section (4) of Section\n22 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 or under sub-section (1) of\nSection 142 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is issued to Ajay Kumar\nBindal, Smt. Geeta Bindal AB Alcobev Pvt. Ltd., Homeland\nBuildwell Pvt. Ltd. (name of the person

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, LUDHIANA vs. AB ALCOBEV PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, appeals of Revenue are dismissed, Cross\nObjections of the assessee for

131 of the\nIncome-tax Act, 1961, or a notice under sub-section (4) of Section\n22 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 or under sub-section (1) of\nSection 142 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is issued to Ajay Kumar\nBindal, Smt. Geeta Bindal AB Alcobev Pvt. Ltd., Homeland\nBuildwell Pvt. Ltd. (name of the person

PREM SINGH RAJA ,CHAMBA vs. PRINCIPLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, both the above appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

reassessment order dated 23.09.2021 was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue as the Ld. AO failed to examine the taxability of Rs. 25,59,41,336/- paid by the purchaser to the confirming party. 2.3 Similarly, for A.Y. 2017–18, the PCIT observed that the AO had not scrutinized the capital gains arising from the transaction, particularly

SH. PREM SINGH RAJA,CHAMBA vs. PR. C.I.T. -1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, both the above appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

reassessment order dated 23.09.2021 was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue as the Ld. AO failed to examine the taxability of Rs. 25,59,41,336/- paid by the purchaser to the confirming party. 2.3 Similarly, for A.Y. 2017–18, the PCIT observed that the AO had not scrutinized the capital gains arising from the transaction, particularly

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, LUDHIANA vs. MALBROS INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD, FARIDKOT

In the result, both the appeals and the Cross Objections are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 992 & 993/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2017-18, 2016-17 The Dcit, Vs Malbros International Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-2, Village – Mansoorwal, Teh-Zira, Ludhiana. Head Offices Old Cantt. Road, Faridkot. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aadcm7203R अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & C.O. Nos. 46 & 45/Chd/2024 In आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 992 & 993/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18, 2016-17 Malbros International Pvt. Ltd., The Dcit, Village – Mansoorwal, Teh-Zira, Vs Central Circle-2, Head Offices Old Cantt. Road, Ludhiana. Faridkot. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aadcm7203R अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate Revenue By : Smt. Kusum Bansal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 14.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.06.2025

131 - No enquiry in this regard was made and no evidence generally was made available by Assessing Officer - Whether since entire order of Assessing Officer was based merely on statement of Director of assessee without summoning or adducing additional/supplementary evidence of any other person corroborating allegation regarding bogus payments made by assessee, Tribunal was justified in deleting impugned addition - Held

SHRI RAKESH KUMAR KATARIA,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT-CC-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal is allowed as indicated

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 159/Chd/2020 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Shri Rakesh Kumar Kataria Vs. The Dcit, Central Circle, बनाम Chandigarh Sco 862, Prop. Subhinfra, Ist Floor, Nac, Manimajra, Chandigarh "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aespk5238A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal, Ca राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Dharamvir, Jcit, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 05.03.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 15.04.2024 आदेश/Order

3) as illegal. 5. Per Contra, the ld. DR has contended that the perusal of section 153C of the I.T. Act reveals that the assessment can be completed for six assessment years prior to the date of search u/s 153C of the Act, provided the conditions mentioned therein are complied with. 5.1 The ld. DR has further contended that therefore

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

131 of the Act were issued to 20 such persons but none responded. The A.O. held that having confronted with the evidence indicating sham transaction, the burden of proof shifted back on the assessee and heavy onus was cast on him under section 68 of the Act to prove his case beyond doubt by producing so called investors

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

131 of the Act were issued to 20 such persons but none responded. The A.O. held that having confronted with the evidence indicating sham transaction, the burden of proof shifted back on the assessee and heavy onus was cast on him under section 68 of the Act to prove his case beyond doubt by producing so called investors

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

131 of the Act were issued to 20 such persons but none responded. The A.O. held that having confronted with the evidence indicating sham transaction, the burden of proof shifted back on the assessee and heavy onus was cast on him under section 68 of the Act to prove his case beyond doubt by producing so called investors