SH. DINESH SETHI,LUDHIANA vs. ITO, LUDHIANA

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 376/Chd/2014 & "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07 Shri Janesh Sethi, Legal Heir Of बनाम The Ito, Late Shri Dinesh Sethi, Ward – 1(1), Vs Prop. M/S R.S. Trading Corp., Ludhiana. C-434, Urban Estate Focal Point, Ludhiana. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan /Tan No: Aaqpk1200Q अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Manav Bansal, Cit Dr तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 23.06.2025 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 04.8.2025

189 iii) Sterlite Industries (India) Ltd. Vs. ACIT (Mad) 302 ITR 275 ITA 376/CHD/2014 & ITA 338/CHD/2017 A.Y. 2006-07 7 3.4 For acquiring jurisdiction u/s 147 of the Act, the A.O. is required to have in his possession certain material or information on the basis of which he could prima-facie have reason to believe that income escaped assessment

EXOTIC REALTORS AND DEVELOPERS,CHANDIGARH vs. PR.CIT-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

189 wherein it has been held that “notices issued by the AO and replies thereto furnished by the assessee reveals that all the queries raised by the AO including about source of deposits were duly answered by the assessee supported with documentary evidence. PCIT was of the view that the AO had not made the requisite enquiries. However, in reply

SH. SOURABH JAIN,LUDHIANA vs. ITO, W-2(3), LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

189 ITR 285, 298; (iii) Indian and Eastern Newspaper Society v. CIT 1 19 ITR 996, 1004; and (iv) ITO v. Lakhmani Mewal Das 103 ITR 437, 445. Reliance may please be given in the case of DCIT V, SMITHKLINE BEECH AM CONSUMER BRANDS LTD., IT AT CHD. [2003/ 126 TAXMAN 104 (CHD.)(MAG), Reopening of an assessment completed under

HARYANA BUILDING AND OTHER CONSTRUCTION WORKERS WELFARE BOARD,PANCHKULA vs. DCIT, EXEMPTION, SECTOR 17

In the result, this appeal of the Assessee stands dismissed

189. As was observed in the earlier part of this judgment - while\nconsidering whether for the period 1.0.2003 -31-5-2011, statutory\nboards, corporations, etc. could have lawfully claimed to be GPU\ncharities, this court has observed that the nature of such\ncorporations is not to generate profit but to make available goods\nand other services for the benefit

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

In the result, this appeal of the Assessee stands dismissed

189. As was observed in the earlier part of this judgment - while\nconsidering whether for the period 1.0.2003 -31-5-2011, statutory\nboards, corporations, etc. could have lawfully claimed to be GPU\ncharities, this court has observed that the nature of such\ncorporations is not to generate profit but to make available goods\nand other services for the benefit

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

In the result, this appeal of the Assessee stands dismissed

189. As was observed in the earlier part of this judgment - while\nconsidering whether for the period 1.0.2003 -31-5-2011, statutory\nboards, corporations, etc. could have lawfully claimed to be GPU\ncharities, this court has observed that the nature of such\ncorporations is not to generate profit but to make available goods\nand other services for the benefit

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

In the result, this appeal of the Assessee stands dismissed

189. As was observed in the earlier part of this judgment - while\nconsidering whether for the period 1.0.2003 -31-5-2011, statutory\nboards, corporations, etc. could have lawfully claimed to be GPU\ncharities, this court has observed that the nature of such\ncorporations is not to generate profit but to make available goods\nand other services for the benefit

SKYCITY BUILDERS AND PROMOTERS PRIVATE LIMITED, ,KHARAR, RUPNAGAR vs. DCIT WARD 6(1), CHANDIGARH JAO ITO 6(1) MOHALI, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the corresponding grounds as raised by the revenue stand dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1066/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/S Skycity Builders & Promoters Pvt. Ltd. Dcit Ward 6(1) बनाम/ Room No.3, 1St Floor Sco-90, City Heart Kharar-Chandigarh Road, Livestock Complex Vs. Kharar, Rupnagar (Punjab) - 140301 Sector – 68, Mohali -160062 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aapcs-2435-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 2. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1217/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Dcit Ward 6(1) M/S Skycity Builders & Promoters Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ Room No.3, 1St Floor Sco-90, City Heart Livestock Complex Kharar-Chandigarh Road, Vs. Sector – 68, Mohali -160062 Kharar, Rupnagar (Punjab) - 140301 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aapcs-2435-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Ms. Yamini (Cit) - Ld. Dr (Virtual) सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05.02.2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 16.03.2026

reassessment proceedings could not be sustained in law. The Ld. CIT-DR, in the written submissions, has stated that the case was reopened on specific, reliable and relevant information. The mentioning of ‘non-fling of return; in the textual narration of the reasons was merely an inadvertent factual error in the body and it does not destroy the valid tangible

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 6 (1), MOHALI vs. SKYCITY BUILDERS AND PROMOTERS PRIVATE LIMITED, KHRAR PUNJAB

In the result, the corresponding grounds as raised by the revenue stand dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1066/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/S Skycity Builders & Promoters Pvt. Ltd. Dcit Ward 6(1) बनाम/ Room No.3, 1St Floor Sco-90, City Heart Kharar-Chandigarh Road, Livestock Complex Vs. Kharar, Rupnagar (Punjab) - 140301 Sector – 68, Mohali -160062 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aapcs-2435-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 2. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1217/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Dcit Ward 6(1) M/S Skycity Builders & Promoters Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ Room No.3, 1St Floor Sco-90, City Heart Livestock Complex Kharar-Chandigarh Road, Vs. Sector – 68, Mohali -160062 Kharar, Rupnagar (Punjab) - 140301 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aapcs-2435-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Ms. Yamini (Cit) - Ld. Dr (Virtual) सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05.02.2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 16.03.2026

reassessment proceedings could not be sustained in law. The Ld. CIT-DR, in the written submissions, has stated that the case was reopened on specific, reliable and relevant information. The mentioning of ‘non-fling of return; in the textual narration of the reasons was merely an inadvertent factual error in the body and it does not destroy the valid tangible