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

133 sub-section (6) on 23.11.2017 from Calcutta Stock Exchange as also M/s Oasis Cine Communication Ltd. which were not replied. Therefore, he treated the alleged sale of shares as a bogus and made the addition. 13. Appeal to the ld. CIT(A) did not bring any relief to the assessee. ITA 704/CHD/2019 14. This case has also identical facts

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

133 sub-section (6) on 23.11.2017 from Calcutta Stock Exchange as also M/s Oasis Cine Communication Ltd. which were not replied. Therefore, he treated the alleged sale of shares as a bogus and made the addition. 13. Appeal to the ld. CIT(A) did not bring any relief to the assessee. ITA 704/CHD/2019 14. This case has also identical facts

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

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

KISSAN FATS LTD.,BATHINDA vs. DCIT, CC-1, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

section 133(6) about alleged purchases of Rs. 61,39,324 which is considered as escaped assessment; it is contended that “During the course of enquiry proceedings, notices u/s 133(6) of the I.T. Act were issued by the Assessing Officer to the assessee company after getting approval from the concerned higher authority. A copy of the letter

S.P. SINGLA CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH (Vice President), SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

reassessment shall be issued by the Assessing Officer for the relevant assessment year or years unless- (a) the assessing officer has in his possession books of account or other documents or evidence which reveal that the income, represented in the form of asset, which has escaped assessment amounts to or is likely to amount fifty lakh rupees or more

SMT. GINNY SOIN,LUDHIANA vs. ACIT, CC-II, LUDHIANA

The appeals are partly allowed

133 sub-\nsection (6) on 23.11.2017 from Calcutta Stock Exchange as\nalso M/s Oasis Cine Communication Ltd. which were not\nreplied. Therefore, he treated the alleged sale of shares as a\nbogus and made the addition.\n13. Appeal to the ld. CIT(A) did not bring any relief to the\nassessee.\nITA 704/CHD/2019\n14. This case has also identical facts

SH. DINESH SOIN,LUDHIANA vs. ACIT, LUDHIANA

The appeals are partly allowed

133 sub-\nsection (6) on 23.11.2017 from Calcutta Stock Exchange as\nalso M/s Oasis Cine Communication Ltd. which were not\nreplied. Therefore, he treated the alleged sale of shares as a\nbogus and made the addition.\n13. Appeal to the ld. CIT(A) did not bring any relief to the\nassessee.\nITA 704/CHD/2019\n14. This case has also identical facts

SMT. GINNY SOIN,LUDHIANA vs. ACIT, CC-II, LUDHIANA

The appeals are partly allowed

133 sub-\nsection (6) on 23.11.2017 from Calcutta Stock Exchange as\nalso M/s Oasis Cine Communication Ltd. which were not\nreplied. Therefore, he treated the alleged sale of shares as a\nbogus and made the addition.\n13. Appeal to the ld. CIT(A) did not bring any relief to the\nassessee.\nITA 704/CHD/2019\n14. This case has also identical facts

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)

section 115JB of the Act. The notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) alongwith questionnaires were issued to the Appellant Company from time to time which were responded to, and requisite information/details furnished. 5.1.3. During the course of assessment proceedings, a notice u/s 133(6) were also issued to RPS and also to some of the parties from whom

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)

section 115JB of the Act. The notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) alongwith questionnaires were issued to the Appellant Company from time to time which were responded to, and requisite information/details furnished. 5.1.3. During the course of assessment proceedings, a notice u/s 133(6) were also issued to RPS and also to some of the parties from whom

SOCIETY FOR EDUCATION AND RESEARCH,JAGADHRI, YAMUNANGAR vs. DCIT(E) (CIRCLE-2), CHANDIGARH

In the result, ground no. 2 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

133(6), the AO has rightly assumed jurisdiction under section 147 of the Act. Further, he relied on the orders of the lower authorities. 9. We have heard the rival contentions and purused the material available on record. In the instant case, the action of the AO in acquiring jurisdiction u/s 147 has been challenged by the assessee

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

In the result, the Appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

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. 14.4 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 on the direction of the third party without having any incriminating

RAVI MEHRA, 1121, SECTOR 10, PANCHKULA 134109, HARYANA,HARYANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3, PANCHKULA, HARYANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

section 133(6) and assuming that commission received by assessee was not included in taxable business turnover was not justified” c. Well Trans Logistics India (P.) Ltd. v. Addl. Commissioner of Income-tax* [2024] 166 taxmann.com 72 (Delhi) “Where Assessing Officer issued reopening notice on basis of information received from Investigation Wing that assessee had deposited substantial amount of cash

M/S SADASHIV VENTURES,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 33/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S Sadashiv Ventures, Vs. The Dcit, बनाम Circle-1, Sco 9, Sector 7, Chandigarh Madhya Marg, Chandigarh "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Abufs6758C अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent ( Physical Hering ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Nikhil Goyal, Advocate & Shri Ashok Goyal, Ca राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Vivek Vardhan, Jcit, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 13.08.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 04.09.2024

133(6) of the I T Act, 1961 vide letters dated 24.11.2016 from M/s FRR Shares & Securities Ltd and M/s Radharamana Commodities Pvt Ltd. In response to which, information from both parties was received which was cross verified with the accounts of the assessee and it was found that the loss of Commodity Trading with M/s Radharaman Commodities

SMT. KARAMJEET KAUR,LUDHIANA vs. ITO, W-III(4), LUDHIANA

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

133 (6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [henceforth, "the Act"], requisitioned the account statement from the aforesaid bank to find that there had been a deposit of cash on various dates, aggregating to Rs.36,71,000/-. Since the assessee was stated to have not responded to notices under section 148/142 (1) of the Act, the AO was constrained

INCOME TAX OFFIER, WARD 6(1), LUDHIANA vs. BALPREET SINGH, LUDHIANA

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

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

reassessment proceedings, the jurisdictional Assessing Officer as well as the FAU issued several statutory notices under section 142(1) and a show-cause notice under section 144 through electronic mode as well as by speed post. However, the assessee remained completely non-compliant and failed to respond to any of the notices or furnish the requisite details and explanations regarding

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH vs. UNIPRO TECHNO INFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the order of the ld CIT(A) is confirmed and the grounds of appeal taken by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

Section 133(6) of the Act by respondent no. 2 to the Irrigation Department, H.P. Government was received on 03.08.2015 from the Executive Engineer (I&PH) Division, H.P. Government, by the said respondent no. 2, in pursuance of which the case of the petitioner was fixed for 04.08.2015. The Assessing Officer i.e. respondent no: 2, passed the following order

DCIT, C-1(1), CHANDIGARH vs. UNIPRO TECHNO INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed

Section 133(6) of the Act by respondent no. 2 to the Irrigation Department, H.P. Government was received on 03.08.2015 from the Executive Engineer (I&PH) Division, H.P. Government, by the said respondent no. 2, in pursuance of which the case of the petitioner was fixed for 04.08.2015. The Assessing Officer i.e. respondent no: 2, passed the following order