M/S JAIN AMAR CLOTHING PVT. LTD.,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-III, LUDHIANA

In the result, the ground no

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

250/-. 4. Being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who has since sustained the addition and against the said findings and the directions of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us. 5. The assessee through its Ground Nos. 2, 4 & 5 has effectively challenged the action

AMARJIT SINGH,LUDHIANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD 6(1) LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA

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

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 1171 /Chd/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Shri Amarjit Singh बनाम The ITO C/o V V Bhalla & Company Ward 6(1) SCF-39, Rishi Nagar Main Market, Ludhiana Adjoining Subway, Ludhiana-141001, Punjab स्थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: ABTPS8558B अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by : Shri Pankaj Bhalla, C.A राजस्व की ओर से/ Revenue by : Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr

section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The appeal, filed with a delay of 34 days, raised several issues including dismissal by Ld. CIT(A) without proper notice, invalid initiation of reassessment

DCIT, C-1(1) , CHANDIGARH vs. M/S FIDELITY INFORMATION SERVICES INDIA PVT. LTD., CHANDIGARH

In the result, the cross-objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

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

250 or section 254 or section 260 or section 262 or section 263 or section 264, the amount on which interest was payable under sub-section (1) or sub-section (3) has been increased or reduced, as the case may be, the interest shall be increased or reduced accordingly, and- - In a case where the interest is increased, the Assessing

ACIT, CIRCLE 1(1), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S SML ISUZU LTD., CHANDIGARH

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

250 of the Act, which is hereinafter referred to as the “impugned order”. 2. At the outset the Registry has pointed out that the appeal filed by the Revenue is time barred by 05 days for which Revenue has filed a condonation of delay application. 3. Delay of 05 days is condoned for which Revenue has shown sufficient cause

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

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 hereinafter referred to as "Act"). 2. That on facts, circumstances and legal position of the case, Worthy CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of Ld. AO of passing asst. order by illegally assumingjurisdiction u/s 153A and more-so when no incriminating material qua this year was found in search

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

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 hereinafter referred to as "Act"). 2. That on facts, circumstances and legal position of the case, Worthy CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of Ld. AO of passing asst. order by illegally assumingjurisdiction u/s 153A and more-so when no incriminating material qua this year was found in search

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

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 hereinafter referred to as "Act"). 2. That on facts, circumstances and legal position of the case, Worthy CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of Ld. AO of passing asst. order by illegally assumingjurisdiction u/s 153A and more-so when no incriminating material qua this year was found in search

SH. SANJAY SINGAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

250 Crores, Rs. 159.61 Crores had been surrendered for the LTCG shown from M/s PIL in the assessment year 2011-12 and 2012-13 in the hands of the assessee, his HUF and his wife Smt. Arti Singal. Therefore the claim of the assessee that the surrender was without any basis was itself baseless and factually incorrect

SH. SANJAY SINGAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

250 Crores, Rs. 159.61 Crores had been surrendered for the LTCG shown from M/s PIL in the assessment year 2011-12 and 2012-13 in the hands of the assessee, his HUF and his wife Smt. Arti Singal. Therefore the claim of the assessee that the surrender was without any basis was itself baseless and factually incorrect

SMT. AARTI SINGAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

250 Crores, Rs. 159.61 Crores had been surrendered for the LTCG shown from M/s PIL in the assessment year 2011-12 and 2012-13 in the hands of the assessee, his HUF and his wife Smt. Arti Singal. Therefore the claim of the assessee that the surrender was without any basis was itself baseless and factually incorrect

SMT. AARTI SINGAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

250 Crores, Rs. 159.61 Crores had been surrendered for the LTCG shown from M/s PIL in the assessment year 2011-12 and 2012-13 in the hands of the assessee, his HUF and his wife Smt. Arti Singal. Therefore the claim of the assessee that the surrender was without any basis was itself baseless and factually incorrect

SMT. AARTI SINGAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

250 Crores, Rs. 159.61 Crores had been surrendered for the LTCG shown from M/s PIL in the assessment year 2011-12 and 2012-13 in the hands of the assessee, his HUF and his wife Smt. Arti Singal. Therefore the claim of the assessee that the surrender was without any basis was itself baseless and factually incorrect

SH. SANJAY SINGAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

250 Crores, Rs. 159.61 Crores had been surrendered for the LTCG shown from M/s PIL in the assessment year 2011-12 and 2012-13 in the hands of the assessee, his HUF and his wife Smt. Arti Singal. Therefore the claim of the assessee that the surrender was without any basis was itself baseless and factually incorrect

AJAY TANTA,SHIMLA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, SHIMLA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

reassessment proceedings, notices were issued by the Assessing Officer. However, according to the assessment order, there was no effective compliance on behalf of the assessee. Consequently, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment ex parte under section 144 read with section 147 of the Act vide order dated 28.03.2024, making additions, inter alia, under section 69 of the Act and determining

THE GAROH CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL SERVICE SOCIETY LIMITED,DHARAMSHALA, KANGRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DHARAMSHALA, DHARAMSHALA

In the result, both the above appeals are allowed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member)

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the A.Y. 2015-16. 3. In the present appeal Assessee has raised the following grounds: 1. That the notice issued w/s 148 of the Act dated 31.03.2022 by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer is illegal in view of the notifications dated 28.03.2022 and 29.03.2022 which states that the notice under section

THE GAROH CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL SERVICE SOCIETY LIMITED,DHARAMSHALA, KANGRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-DHARAMSHALA, DHARAMSHALA

In the result, both the above appeals are allowed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member)

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the A.Y. 2015-16. 3. In the present appeal Assessee has raised the following grounds: 1. That the notice issued w/s 148 of the Act dated 31.03.2022 by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer is illegal in view of the notifications dated 28.03.2022 and 29.03.2022 which states that the notice under section

DCIT, CC-3, LUDHIANA, KITCHLU NAGAR vs. MANI RAM BALWANT RAI HUF, CIVIL LINES

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

250 of the Act dated 19.07.2024, partly allowing the appeal. 3.2 The summary of additions and their outcome before the first appellate authority is as under: Issue Addition made Addition Remarks by AO sustained by CIT(A) Sale suppression 4,94,63,415/- 55,06,010/- The CIT(A) upheld sale suppression but quantified

MASTER TRUST LIMITED,LUDHIANA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUDHIANA

In the result, ground no. 1 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed

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

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi is against law and facts on the file in as much as he was not justified to uphold the action of the Learned Assessing Officer in initiating proceedings u/s 147. 2. That the Learned CIT (Appeals), NFAC, was not justified to arbitrarily uphold

M/S INTERNATIONAL CUSTOMER RELATED MANAGEMENT SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE 6(1), MOHALI

In the result, for statistical purposes, the appeal is

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

reassessment proceedings under section 147 of the Act having being initiated merely on the basis of information received, without independent application of mind by the assessing officer to such information and forming opinion thereof, is illegal and bad in law. 4.4. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the assessing officer erred in making additions