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

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

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

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 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

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

DCIT,CIRCLE-I, LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA vs. ADINATH TEXTILES LIMITED, LUDHIANA

In the result both the appeal filed by the Revenue and Cross objection filed by the Assessee are dismissed

Bench: the appeal is finally heard or disposed off.

133 (6) in respect of ‘Growfast Realtors Pvt. Ltd’. and ‘Pushpanjali Commotrade Pvt. Ltd’. from whom, the amount was received. Thus, the addition was made u/s 68 to the tune of Rs. 2,20,32,737/- and in respect of purchases made from ‘Khusbhoo Complex Pvt. Ltd’. and ‘Klaap Vyapaar Pvt. Ltd’., it was argued by the DR that

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

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

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

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

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

JAMYANG KHYENTSE YESHI,KANGRA, HIMACHAL PRADESH vs. ACIT, DCIT, C.R. BUILDING, CHANDIGARH

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A). The Ld. Cit(A), After Calling For A Remand Report Under Rule 46A, Recorded The Following Findings (Para 5.1 To 5.5 Of The Appellate Order):

133(6) of the Act. In addition to the above mentioned amount, the AO has also added an amount of Rs. 7,00,335/- in lieu of credit card payments made by the appellant. Aggrieved with a total addition of Rs. 42,57,319/-, the appellant fled appeal before CIT(A) vide Form No. 35 dated 27.05.2022. 5.2 In view

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

SBS BIOTECH UNIT II,SIRMOUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

133(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was issued to the assessee on 15.03.2021 for furnish the relevant documents/information on or before 18.03.2021, but no information/documents was filed by the assessee in response to abovementioned letters. 5. Findings of the AO: Since the genuineness of the excess claim amounting to Rs.10,91,16,920/- for deduction u/s 80IC

VASHISHT ALLOYS,NAHAN vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE, YAMUNA NAGAR, YAMUNA NAGAR

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

Bench: SHRI RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

133(6) notices proved futile. All such notices were returned un- served, reinforcing the suspicion that these entities were either non- traceable or non-functional at the declared addresses. The non- cooperation of key counterparties and the absence of third-party confirmations further weaken the appellant’s case. The argument that similar consignment transactions with other parties were accepted without