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

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 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

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

KISSAN FATS LTD.,BATHINDA vs. DCIT, CC-1, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

250(6) of the Act, which is hereinafter referred to as the “impugned order”. FACTUAL MATRIX 2. The assessee is a company under the Companies Act, 1956/2013. The assessee is into the business of manufacturing vanaspati ghee and refined oil and had filed return of income at rs. 2,07,78,950/- on 30/09/2013. 3. The assessee maintains audited books

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

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

VINEET KUMAR,DHARAMSHALA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DHARMSHALA

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

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member)

reassessment proceedings, invocation of section 144, violation of principles of natural justice, and also the addition made under section 69A of the Act. The grounds, inter alia, include challenge to jurisdiction on account of alleged invalid issuance of notice under section 148, non-compliance of procedure prescribed under section 148A, improper invocation of best judgment assessment despite compliance, and failure

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

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

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. KARAMJEET KAUR,LUDHIANA vs. ITO, W-III(4), LUDHIANA

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

250(6) of the Income Tax Act,1961 (in short referred to as “Act”)dated 15-03-2018, relating to A.Y. 2009-10. 2. Brief facts relating to the case are that the Assessing Officer had information in his possession that cash exceeding Rs.10 lakhs stood deposited in the savings bank account of the assessee maintained with Punjab National

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)

section 250 on various dates. As recorded in the appellate order, no submissions were filed by the assessee, and the appeal was dismissed by the Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 07.10.2024, primarily on the ground of non-prosecution, while also affirming the action of the Assessing Officer on merits. 5. Against the order

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

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