M/S SINGLA BUILDERS AND PROMOTERS LIMITED,RUPNAGAR, PUNJAB vs. DCIT/ACIT(CEN)-1 CHD, CHANDIGARH

The appeals stand partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.487/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) M/S Singla Builders & Promoters Ltd. Dcit / Acit Central-1 बनाम/ Plot No 1265, Sector 82, Industrial Area C.R. Building, Sector 17 Vs. Rupnagar (Punjab) 140308 Chandigarh-160017 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaocs-6503-M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.482/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 3. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.484/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) M/S Credo Assets Private Ltd. Dcit / Acit Central-1 बनाम/ Plot No 1265-C, Sector 82, Industrial Area C.R. Building, Sector 17 Vs. Rupnagar (Punjab) 140308 Chandigarh-160017 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aafcc-6400-L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal (Ca) & Smt. Shruti Khandelwal (Ca) – Ld. Ars ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Smt. Kusum Bansal (Cit) & Shri Rajat Kumar Kureel (Cit) – Ld. Drs (Virtual) Date Of Final Hearing : 27-01-2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 03-02-2026

reassessment. These amendments were to take effect from 01-10-2014. It was thus stated that the legislature specifically laid out emphasis on the limitation period to file report by the DVO. In the present case, the report was never served upon the assessee by DVO and secondly, the report was furnished to AO beyond 6 months from

M/S CREDO ASSETS PVT. LTD.,RUPNAGAR PUNJAB vs. DCIT/ACIT(CEN)-1 CHD, CHANDIGARH

The appeals stand partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.487/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) M/S Singla Builders & Promoters Ltd. Dcit / Acit Central-1 बनाम/ Plot No 1265, Sector 82, Industrial Area C.R. Building, Sector 17 Vs. Rupnagar (Punjab) 140308 Chandigarh-160017 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaocs-6503-M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.482/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 3. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.484/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) M/S Credo Assets Private Ltd. Dcit / Acit Central-1 बनाम/ Plot No 1265-C, Sector 82, Industrial Area C.R. Building, Sector 17 Vs. Rupnagar (Punjab) 140308 Chandigarh-160017 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aafcc-6400-L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal (Ca) & Smt. Shruti Khandelwal (Ca) – Ld. Ars ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Smt. Kusum Bansal (Cit) & Shri Rajat Kumar Kureel (Cit) – Ld. Drs (Virtual) Date Of Final Hearing : 27-01-2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 03-02-2026

reassessment. These amendments were to take effect from 01-10-2014. It was thus stated that the legislature specifically laid out emphasis on the limitation period to file report by the DVO. In the present case, the report was never served upon the assessee by DVO and secondly, the report was furnished to AO beyond 6 months from

ROSHA ALLOYS P LIMITED, AMLOH ROAD, VILLAGE TURAN, MANDI GOBINDGARH,PUNJAB vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, LUDHIANA, PUNJAB

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed,\nwhereas the appeals of the assessee are allowed

reassessment under Sections 147 and 148 of the\nAct, the existence of information suggesting escapement of income\ncontinues to be a foundational jurisdictional requirement. The Hon'ble\nCourt clarified that the benchmark under the amended law remains\naligned with the earlier threshold of “reason to believe,” and that the\npower under Section 147 cannot be invoked in the absence

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, LUDHIANA , LUDHIANA vs. ROSHA ALLOYS PVT. LTD., MANDI GOBINDGARH

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed,\nwhereas the appeals of the assessee are allowed

reassessment under Sections 147 and 148 of the\nAct, the existence of information suggesting escapement of income\ncontinues to be a foundational jurisdictional requirement. The Hon'ble\nCourt clarified that the benchmark under the amended law remains\naligned with the earlier threshold of “reason to believe,” and that the\npower under Section 147 cannot be invoked in the absence

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, LUDHIANA , LUDHIANA vs. ROSHA ALLOYS PVT. LTD., MANDI GOBINDGARH

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed,\nwhereas the appeals of the assessee are allowed

reassessment under Sections 147 and 148 of the\nAct, the existence of information suggesting escapement of income\ncontinues to be a foundational jurisdictional requirement. The Hon'ble\nCourt clarified that the benchmark under the amended law remains\naligned with the earlier threshold of “reason to believe,” and that the\npower under Section 147 cannot be invoked in the absence

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, LUDHIANA , LUDHIANA vs. ROSHA ALLOYS PVT. LTD., MANDI GOBINDGARH

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed,\nwhereas the appeals of the assessee are allowed

reassessment under Sections 147 and 148 of the\nAct, the existence of information suggesting escapement of income\ncontinues to be a foundational jurisdictional requirement. The Hon'ble\nCourt clarified that the benchmark under the amended law remains\naligned with the earlier threshold of “reason to believe,” and that the\npower under Section 147 cannot be invoked in the absence

SUBHASH CHANDER GUPTA, H.NO. 16528 VISHNU COLONY, RALIWAY ROAD, KURUKSHETRA,HARYANA vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KURUKSHETRA

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahay

245 taxman 209 (Del) vide order dated 06.01.2017. 5. Judgment in the case of ITO Amritsar vs. Arun Kumar Kapoor passed by ITAT, Amritsar ; Bench ITA No. 147(ASR)/2010. 8. The ld. CIT DR on the other hand contended that a perusal of Section 153C would indicate that where the evidence pertaining to assessee unearthed during the course

SUBHASH CHANDER GUPTA, H.NO. 1652 8 VISHNU COLONY, RAILWAY ROAD, KURUKSHETRA,HARYANA vs. ITO WARD-3, KURUKSHETRA, HARYANA

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahay

245 taxman 209 (Del) vide order dated 06.01.2017. 5. Judgment in the case of ITO Amritsar vs. Arun Kumar Kapoor passed by ITAT, Amritsar ; Bench ITA No. 147(ASR)/2010. 8. The ld. CIT DR on the other hand contended that a perusal of Section 153C would indicate that where the evidence pertaining to assessee unearthed during the course

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (IN SITU) CIRCLE-I, , LUDHIANA vs. KAPIL THAPAR, LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed and Cross

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

245 taxman 209 (Del) vide order dated 06.01.2017. e. Judgment in the case of ITO Amritsar vs. Arun Kumar Kapoor passed by ITAT, Amritsar; Bench ITA No. 147(ASR)/2010. vi) It is further argued that section 153C reads as under:- 153C. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in section-139, section- 147, section-148, section-149, section-151 and section

INCOME TAX OFFICER, MOHALI PUNJAB vs. TAJ LAND DEVELOPEFRS AND PROMOTERS PRIVATE LIMITED , SECTOR MOHALI PUNJAB

In the result, appeal is dismissed

section 147/148 is arbitrary and bad in law and therefore assessment\nframed consequent thereto is obviously illegal and void ab initio and liable to\nbe quashed. We accordingly set aside the order of the Id. CIT(A) and hold re-\nassessment proceedings bad in law and also directing quashing of the re-\nassessment order.\n\nFortune Metaliks Limited vs DCIT

AJIT SINGH,PATIALA vs. ITO, PATIALA

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

Bench: Us, The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Has Submitted An Application For Condonation Of Delay Along With An Affidavit, Which Is Reproduced As Under:-

245 days in filing of the appeal. During the proceedings before us, the ld. Counsel for the Assessee has submitted an application for condonation of delay along with an Affidavit, which is reproduced as under:- 3. I have considered the reasoning given in the affidavit and inclined to condone the delay. 4. The ld. DR did not have any objection

INCOME TAX OFFICER, MOHALI vs. GURTEJ SINGH, MOHALI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

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

245, Sector 16A Circle-1, Chandigarh Chandigarh "ायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AFFPK4564F अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ"/Respondent िनधा"रती की ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Yogesh Monga, C.A राज" की ओर से/ Revenue by : Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 08/04/2025 उदघोषणा की तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 24/04/2025 आदेश/Order PER LALIET KUMAR, J.M: These

KANWALDEEP KAUR,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

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

245, Sector 16A Circle-1, Chandigarh Chandigarh "ायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AFFPK4564F अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ"/Respondent िनधा"रती की ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Yogesh Monga, C.A राज" की ओर से/ Revenue by : Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 08/04/2025 उदघोषणा की तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 24/04/2025 आदेश/Order PER LALIET KUMAR, J.M: These

SH.RANDHIR SINGH,MOHALI vs. PR.CIT-1, CHANDIGARH

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

reassessment by treating order in original assessment proceedings as ‘erroneous’ and ‘prejudicial to the interest of revenue’. We hold that ld. AO has accepted the RoI in physical form and has signed on each page of RoI which runs into 9 pages [page 3 to 13 of Paper Book]. 19. We hold that even otherwise by virtue of provision contained

A.B. SUGARS LIMITED,PUNJAB vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1, CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

reassessed at the proper quantums through formal proceedings u/s 143 of the Act. 7. In consequence having considered the facts and circumstances of the instant case, I am of the considered opinion that the assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s 144B of the Act dated 21.04.2021 passed by the Assessing Officer is erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interests

A.B. SUGARS LIMITED,PUNJAB 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)

reassessed at the proper quantums through formal proceedings u/s 143 of the Act. 7. In consequence having considered the facts and circumstances of the instant case, I am of the considered opinion that the assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s 144B of the Act dated 21.04.2021 passed by the Assessing Officer is erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interests

M/S GANESH BUILDERS,PANCHKULA vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the respective appeals and stay applications are disposed off in light of aforesaid directions

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

reassessment is passed pursuant to a search operation is a mandatory requirement of Section 153D of the Act and that such approval is not meant to be given mechanically. Further, it was also held that the approving authority must grant hearing to the assessee, the AO should place draft order atleast one month in advance of time barring date

M/S LUXMI BUILDERS,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the respective appeals and stay applications are disposed off in light of aforesaid directions

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

reassessment is passed pursuant to a search operation is a mandatory requirement of Section 153D of the Act and that such approval is not meant to be given mechanically. Further, it was also held that the approving authority must grant hearing to the assessee, the AO should place draft order atleast one month in advance of time barring date