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)

253 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Revenue is aggrieved by the order no. ITBA/FAC/250/2022- 23/1044150537(1) dt. 22/07/2022 of the Ld. CIT(A) passed under section 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

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

253 contemplates that the Tribunal may admit an appeal or permit filing of memorandum of cross- objections after expiry of relevant period, if it is satisfied that there was a sufficient cause for not presenting it within that period. This expression sufficient cause employed in the section has also been used identically in sub-section 3 of section

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

253 contemplates that the Tribunal\nmay admit an appeal or permit filing of memorandum of cross-\nobjections after expiry of relevant period, if it is satisfied that there\nwas a sufficient cause for not presenting it within that period. This\nexpression sufficient cause employed in the section has also been\nused identically in sub-section 3 of section

SH. DINESH SOIN,LUDHIANA vs. ACIT, LUDHIANA

The appeals are partly allowed

253 contemplates that the\nTribunal may admit an appeal or permit filing of\nmemorandum of cross- objections after expiry of relevant\nperiod, if it is satisfied that there was a sufficient cause for\nnot presenting it within that period. This expression\nsufficient cause employed in the section has also been used\nidentically in sub-section 3 of section

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

The appeals are partly allowed

253 contemplates that the\nTribunal may admit an appeal or permit filing of\nmemorandum of cross- objections after expiry of relevant\nperiod, if it is satisfied that there was a sufficient cause for\nnot presenting it within that period. This expression\nsufficient cause employed in the section has also been used\nidentically in sub-section 3 of section

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

The appeals are partly allowed

253 contemplates that the\nTribunal may admit an appeal or permit filing of\nmemorandum of cross- objections after expiry of relevant\nperiod, if it is satisfied that there was a sufficient cause for\nnot presenting it within that period. This expression\nsufficient cause employed in the section has also been used\nidentically in sub-section 3 of section

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

253 contemplates that the\nTribunal may admit an appeal or permit filing of memorandum\nof cross- objections after expiry of relevant period, if it is\nsatisfied that there was a sufficient cause for not presenting\nit within that period. This expression sufficient cause\nemployed in the section has also been used identically in sub-\nsection 3 of section

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

253 contemplates that the\nTribunal may admit an appeal or permit filing of memorandum\nof cross- objections after expiry of relevant period, if it is\nsatisfied that there was a sufficient cause for not presenting\nit within that period. This expression sufficient cause\nemployed in the section has also been used identically in sub-\nsection 3 of section

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

253 contemplates that the\nTribunal may admit an appeal or permit filing of memorandum\nof cross- objections after expiry of relevant period, if it is\nsatisfied that there was a sufficient cause for not presenting\nit within that period. This expression sufficient cause\nemployed in the section has also been used identically in sub-\nsection 3 of section

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

253 contemplates that the\nTribunal may admit an appeal or permit filing of memorandum\nof cross- objections after expiry of relevant period, if it is\nsatisfied that there was a sufficient cause for not presenting\nit within that period. This expression sufficient cause\nemployed in the section has also been used identically in sub-\nsection 3 of section

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, LUDHIANA , LUDHIANA vs. HOMELIFE BUILDCON PVT. LTD., LUDHIANA

In the result, Revenue appeal is dismissed and appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 880/Chd/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2021-22 Homelife Buildcon Private Limited Sunview Enclave, Ayali Kalan, Ludhiana, Punjab-142027 स्थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AABCH5690M अपीलार्थी/Appellant The DCIT Central Circle-1 Ludhiana, Punjab प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 1036/Chd/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2021-22 Homelife Buildcon Private Limited Sunview Enclave, Ayali Kalan, Lu

reassessment not only. procedurally defective but also without jurisdiction. 33. Even we find while framing the assessment under section 143(3), the Assessing Officer (AO) has, on the last page of the assessment order, referred to an approval obtained from the supervisory authority. However, a bare perusal of this approval 25 shows that it was obtained in reference

HOMELIFE BUILDCON PRIVATE LIMITED,SUNVIEW ENCLAVE, AYALI KALAN, LUDHIANA,PUNJAB vs. SMT. SAMANDEEP KAUR DCIT-CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, LUDHIANA, PUNJAB

In the result, Revenue appeal is dismissed and appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 880/Chd/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2021-22 Homelife Buildcon Private Limited Sunview Enclave, Ayali Kalan, Ludhiana, Punjab-142027 स्थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AABCH5690M अपीलार्थी/Appellant बनाम The DCIT Central Circle-1 Ludhiana, Punjab प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 1036/Chd/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2021-22 बनाम Homelife Buildcon Private Limited Sunview Enclave, Ayali

reassessment not only. procedurally defective but also without jurisdiction. 33. Even we find while framing the assessment under section 143(3), the Assessing Officer (AO) has, on the last page of the assessment order, referred to an approval obtained from the supervisory authority. However, a bare perusal of this approval 25 shows that it was obtained in reference

THE SHAHABAD COOP. SUGAR MILLS,SHAHABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE, KURUKSHETRA

Bench: Us In Terms Of Section 253 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The Assessee Being Aggrieved By The Order Of Ld. Cit(A) Dt. 11/03/2018 Which Is Hereinafter Referred To As The Impugned Order, Before This Tribunal In Form No. 36 Has Interalia Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

253 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The Assessee being aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A) dt. 11/03/2018 which is hereinafter referred to as the impugned order, before this Tribunal in Form No. 36 has interalia raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. That the addition of Rs.465647/- as interest on share investment is not justified when

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA vs. AMARJIT SINGH , BATHINDA

In the result, Cross Objections of the assessee

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahay

253 of the Income Tax Act, it provides that the AO or the assessee, as & C.O. 07/CHD/2024 A.Y.2019-20 3 the case may be, on receipt of notice that an appeal against the order of the CIT(A) has been preferred under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) by the other party, may notwithstanding that he may not be appealed

ASHISH SOOD,ZIRAKPUR vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

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

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

253 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, before us against the aforesaid order dt. 28/11/2023. Factual Matrix 3. The Assessee had for the A.Y. 2020-21 had filed return of income under 21/09/2020 section 139(1)of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on under acknowledgment no. 569299010210920 declaring the total income as Rs. 1,65,39,120/- wherein total

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)

253 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee is aggrieved by the order passed under Section 263 of the Act, bearing order no. ITBA/REV/F/REV5/2022 dt. 27/03/2023 which is hereinafter referred to as the impugned order. The impugned order has revised the AO’s order no. ITBA/AST/S/143(3) 2020-21/1027309634(1) dt. 12/06/2020 which is hereinafter referred

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

253 contemplates that the Tribunal may admit an appeal or permit filing of memorandum of cross- objections after expiry of relevant period, if it is satisfied that there was a sufficient cause for not presenting it within that period. This expression sufficient cause employed in the section has also been used identically in sub- section 3 of section

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