SAUGAAT,AMBALA CANTT vs. ITO, WARD 4, AMBALA CANTT. (ASSESSMENT UNIT), AMBALA CANTT

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

Section 249(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 9 That the appellant craves to add, amend or alter any ground of appeal before or at the time of hearing of appeal, with the permission of the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh. 3. It is noticed that there is a delay of 61 days on the part

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

249 of Income Tax Act, which provides powers to the ld. Commissioner to condone the delay in filing the appeal before the Commissioner. Similarly, it has been used in section 5 of Indian Limitation Act, 1963. Whenever interpretation and construction of this expression has fallen for consideration before Hon’ble High Court as well as before the Hon’ble Supreme

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, LUDHIANA , LUDHIANA vs. AVINASH SINGLA, KHANNA

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

249 of Income Tax Act,\nwhich provides powers to the ld. Commissioner to condone the delay\nin filing the appeal before the Commissioner. Similarly, it has been\nused in section 5 of Indian Limitation Act, 1963. Whenever\ninterpretation and construction of this expression has fallen for\nconsideration before Hon'ble High Court as well as before the Hon'ble\nSupreme

SH. DINESH SOIN,LUDHIANA vs. ACIT, LUDHIANA

The appeals are partly allowed

249 of Income Tax Act,\nwhich provides powers to the ld. Commissioner to condone\nthe delay in filing the appeal before the Commissioner.\nSimilarly, it has been used in section 5 of Indian Limitation\nAct, 1963. Whenever interpretation and construction of this\nexpression has fallen for consideration before Hon'ble High\nCourt as well as before the Hon'ble Supreme

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

The appeals are partly allowed

249 of Income Tax Act,\nwhich provides powers to the ld. Commissioner to condone\nthe delay in filing the appeal before the Commissioner.\nSimilarly, it has been used in section 5 of Indian Limitation\nAct, 1963. Whenever interpretation and construction of this\nexpression has fallen for consideration before Hon'ble High\nCourt as well as before the Hon'ble Supreme

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

The appeals are partly allowed

249 of Income Tax Act,\nwhich provides powers to the ld. Commissioner to condone\nthe delay in filing the appeal before the Commissioner.\nSimilarly, it has been used in section 5 of Indian Limitation\nAct, 1963. Whenever interpretation and construction of this\nexpression has fallen for consideration before Hon'ble High\nCourt as well as before the Hon'ble Supreme

MEHAL SINGH,JHALLIAN KHURD,RUPNAGAR vs. ITO WARD-2(2), ROPAR, ROPAR

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: The Cit(A), All The Notices & The Impugned Order Were Communicated At The Old Email Address Of The Earlier Counsel & Not At The Updated Email Address Furnished In The Income-Tax Records. Consequently, The Assessee Remained Unaware Of The Dismissal Of The Appeal & Came To Know About It Only When Recovery Proceedings Were Initiated. Immediately Thereafter He Consulted His Counsel & Steps Were Taken To File The Present Appeal. It Has Further Been Submitted That The Assessee Is A Senior Citizen Suffering From Hypertension & Diabetes & Due To Medical Complications

reassessment proceedings. 5.1 Consequently, the Assessing Officer completed assessment ex-parte under section 147 read with section 144 determining income at Rs.75,54,200/- and raised demand of Rs.66,75,959/-. 6. In appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) did not examine the additions on merits and dismissed the appeal in limine by invoking section 249

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)

249/- to 19,17,26,089/- on the basis of book profit in the profit and loss account prepared as per Companies Act, 2013, whereas exemption of eligible profit and gain is to be allowed after deduction of depreciation u/s 32 and other deductions allowable as per the Income Tax Act/ Rules to compute total income eligible for deduction

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)

249/- to 19,17,26,089/- on the basis of book profit in the profit and loss account prepared as per Companies Act, 2013, whereas exemption of eligible profit and gain is to be allowed after deduction of depreciation u/s 32 and other deductions allowable as per the Income Tax Act/ Rules to compute total income eligible for deduction

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

249 of Income Tax Act, which provides\npowers to the 1d. Commissioner to condone the delay in filing\nthe appeal before the Commissioner. Similarly, it has been\nused in section 5 of Indian Limitation Act, 1963. Whenever\ninterpretation and construction of this expression has fallen\nfor consideration before Hon'ble High Court as well as before\nthe Hon'ble Supreme

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

249 of Income Tax Act, which provides\npowers to the 1d. Commissioner to condone the delay in filing\nthe appeal before the Commissioner. Similarly, it has been\nused in section 5 of Indian Limitation Act, 1963. Whenever\ninterpretation and construction of this expression has fallen\nfor consideration before Hon'ble High Court as well as before\nthe Hon'ble Supreme

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

249 of Income Tax Act, which provides\npowers to the 1d. Commissioner to condone the delay in filing\nthe appeal before the Commissioner. Similarly, it has been\nused in section 5 of Indian Limitation Act, 1963. Whenever\ninterpretation and construction of this expression has fallen\nfor consideration before Hon'ble High Court as well as before\nthe Hon'ble Supreme

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

249 of Income Tax Act, which provides\npowers to the 1d. Commissioner to condone the delay in filing\nthe appeal before the Commissioner. Similarly, it has been\nused in section 5 of Indian Limitation Act, 1963. Whenever\ninterpretation and construction of this expression has fallen\nfor consideration before Hon'ble High Court as well as before\nthe Hon'ble Supreme

SH. SATNAM SINGH,MOHALI vs. ITO, WARD 6(1), MOHALI

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Krinwant Sahay

249 (Mad.), wherein the Hon'ble High Court held as under:- “…The revenue, aggrieved over that portion of the order, filed the present appeal by formulating the following questions of law:- "1. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that reassessment proceedings are not valid since the assessing officer is barred

SH. SATNAM SINGH,MOHALI vs. ITO, WARD 6(4), MOHALI

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Krinwant Sahay

249 (Mad.), wherein the Hon'ble High Court held as under:- “…The revenue, aggrieved over that portion of the order, filed the present appeal by formulating the following questions of law:- "1. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that reassessment proceedings are not valid since the assessing officer is barred

SAHEED DARSHAN FILLING STATION,LUDHIANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (ITO), WARD 3, KHANNA, KHANNA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and Stay Application is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1736/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shaheed Darshan Filling Station, The Ito, Village-Iraq, Kohara Road, Vs Ward-3, Machhiwara, So-Irak, Ludhiana. Khanna. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aarfs1129H अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & S.A. No. 5/Chd/2026 In आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1736/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shaheed Darshan Filling Station, The Ito, Village-Iraq, Kohara Road, Vs Ward-3, Machhiwara, So-Irak, Ludhiana. Khanna. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aarfs1129H अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sifatpreet Singh, Ca & Shri Amanjot Singh, Ca Revenue By : Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. Cit Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 28.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.02.2026 Physical Hearing O R D E R Per Raj Pal Yadav, Vp

249 of Income Tax Act, which provides powers to the ld. Commissioner to condone the delay in filing the appeal before the Commissioner. Similarly, it has been used in section 5 of Indian Limitation Act, 1963. Whenever interpretation and construction of this expression has fallen for consideration before Hon’ble High Court as well as before the Hon’ble Supreme

SH. JATINDER KAURA (DECEASED) THROUGH L/H SMT. DIMPLE KAURA,RAIKOT, LUDHIANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JAGRAON

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadavआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1394/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Shri Jatinder Kaura The Ito, (Through L/H Smt. Dimple Kaura, Vs Ward-1, House No. 338, New Green City, Jagraon. Raikot, Distt. Ludhiana. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Agwpk6095P अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Kuldeep Singh, Itp & Shri Mps Malhotra, Itp Revenue By : Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. Cit Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 22.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.01.2026

Reassessment notice issued to deceased person is invalid even if legal heir participated. iv) Hon'ble Delhi HC in the case of Vipin Walia Vs Income Tax Officer has held that AO must issue fresh notice to legal heirs; old notice is void. v) Legal Heirs of Late Sh Virendra Kumar Bhatnagar (Deceased) Vs ACIT (Delhi High Court

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

249 of Income Tax Act, which provides powers to the ld. Commissioner to condone the delay in filing the appeal before the Commissioner. Similarly, it has been used in section 5 of Indian Limitation Act, 1963. Whenever interpretation and construction of this expression has fallen for consideration before Hon’ble High Court as well as before the Hon’ble Supreme

ANIL KUMAR MITTAL H.NO. 143, DLF VALLEY PANCHKULA,PANCHKULA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 6(1), LUDHIANA, PUNJAB

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A) who has since confirmed the order of the Ld. AO. Against the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us.3. During the course of hearing, the Ld. AR submitted that the notice under Section 148 dated 30/03/2019 has not been served on the assessee on his address and some other address has been mentioned in the notice which doesn't belong to the assessee. It was submitted that on inspection of the assessment records, it has been noted that the notice has been re

249 (Delhi), (enclosed at Page 59-69 of the Judgment set) It has been reported as under "On the facts of the present case, the Tribunal was right in its conclusion that since no proper service of notice had been affected under section 148 (1) on the assessee, the reassessment