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)

reassessment proceedings were reopened within 4 years on the basis of the information contained in the tax audit report [refer para 21 pg. 9]. The issue before the Court was whether in the absence of any new / fresh material, reopening is permissible. 11. The Full Bench of the Hon'ble Court, reproduced with approval the following extracts of decision

SHRI MOHAN LAL GUPTA,SHIMLA vs. PR.CIT-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

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

section 54F by an amount of Rs. 79,80,694/- in respect of purchase of an immovable property situated at New Shimla. 23. Further, during the course of reassessment

BEE GEE CONSTRUCTION CO,ZIRAKPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 3(1), CHANDIGARH

The appeal stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

reassessment proceedings. The assessee failed to file the completion certificate. In terms of Explanation (ii) to sub-section (10) of Sec. 80

BEE GEE CONSTRUCTION CO,ZIRAKPUR vs. ACIT, CIR-3(1), CHANDIGARH

The appeal stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

reassessment proceedings. The assessee failed to file the completion certificate. In terms of Explanation (ii) to sub-section (10) of Sec. 80

MANDEEP KAUR,FATEHABAD vs. ITO, WARD - 1, FATEHABAD

The appeal stand allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.630/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Ms. Mandeep Kaur Ito Ward -1 बनाम/ Vs. Vpo Museh Ali Hizrawan, Khurd, To Fatehabad Rohtak - 124001 Fatehabad, Haryana – 125050 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Datpk-9813-D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Mukesh Kumar Jain (Ca) – Ld. Ar (Virtual) ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10.02.2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 16.02.2026 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2016- 17 Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac [Cit(A)] Dated 17-02-2025 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S 147 R.W.S. 144Of The Act On30-04-2023. 2. The Ld. Ar, At The Outset, Urged Legal Ground No.4 To Assail The Jurisdiction Of Ld. Ao. In This Ground Of Appeal, It Has Been Pleaded That The Order Passed U/S 148A(D) As Well As Issue Of Notice U/S 148

Section 148 - to issue a reassessment notice. 80. In Ashish Agarwal (supra), this Court directed that Section 148 notices which

WINSOME TEXTILE INDUSTRIES LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1), CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

Section 147 is attracted. The reasons to believe ought to also paraphrase any investigation report which may form the basis of the reasons and any enquiry conducted by the AO on the same and if so, the conclusions thereof; (iii) where the reasons make a reference to another document, whether as a letter or report, such document and/ or relevant

M/S BROOKS LABORATORIES LTD.,BADDI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE, PANCHKULA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

80-IC claimed at Rs. 27,66,772/- @ 30% on interest income amounting to Rs. 92,22,575/-.” 3. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the assessee has filed its original return of income declaring total income at NIL which was selected for compulsory scrutiny and therefore, the assessment proceedings were completed and order was passed under section

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)

Section 263 to direct fresh assessment Virbhadra singh (HUF) vs PCIT [2017] 80 ;uinann.com 113 (Himachal Pradesh). 6. In view of the discussion above at this time, the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Act dated 21 04.2021 is prima-facie erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interests of revenue as the order has been

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)

Section 263 to direct fresh assessment Virbhadra singh (HUF) vs PCIT [2017] 80 ;uinann.com 113 (Himachal Pradesh). 6. In view of the discussion above at this time, the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Act dated 21 04.2021 is prima-facie erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interests of revenue as the order has been

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA vs. M/S JAMNA DASS NIKKAMAL JAIN SARAF PVT. LTD., LUDHIANA

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

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

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 shows that it was obtained in reference

JAMNA DASS NIKKAMAL JAIN SARAF PRIVATE LIMITED, LUDHIANA,LUDHIANA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA

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

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

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 shows that it was obtained in reference

DAXEN AGRITECH INDIA PVT. LTD.,BADDI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE, PARWANOO

In the result, all the above appeals of the Assessee are dismissed

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

Section 80 IC of the Act after overlooking/misinterpreting the findings/observations given by Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Madras in its judgment dated 21.06.2018? 3. Whether the learned authorities below acted mere on the presumptions and committed gross illegality in observing that the assessee is not engaged in any manufacturing activity? 4. Whether the learned Assessing Officer

DAXEN AGRITECH INDIA PVT. LTD.,BADDI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE, PARWANOO

In the result, all the above appeals of the Assessee are dismissed

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

Section 80 IC of the Act after overlooking/misinterpreting the findings/observations given by Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Madras in its judgment dated 21.06.2018? 3. Whether the learned authorities below acted mere on the presumptions and committed gross illegality in observing that the assessee is not engaged in any manufacturing activity? 4. Whether the learned Assessing Officer

DAXEN AGRITECH INDIA PVT. LTD.,BADDI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE, PARWANOO

In the result, all the above appeals of the Assessee are dismissed

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

Section 80 IC of the Act after overlooking/misinterpreting the findings/observations given by Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Madras in its judgment dated 21.06.2018? 3. Whether the learned authorities below acted mere on the presumptions and committed gross illegality in observing that the assessee is not engaged in any manufacturing activity? 4. Whether the learned Assessing Officer

M/S PNG TRADING PRIVATE LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all four appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

80,00,000/- out of which cash back due (to be paid to the entry provider) is for Rs. 82,40,000/- after adding service charge @ 3%. This clearly shows that assessee is paying commission/service charges @3% for obtaining accommodation entry in form of share capital.” ITA Nos.238 & 239/CHD/2015 & ITA Nos. 831 & 832/CHD/2018 A.Y.2005-6

M/S PNG TRADING PRIVATE LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all four appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

80,00,000/- out of which cash back due (to be paid to the entry provider) is for Rs. 82,40,000/- after adding service charge @ 3%. This clearly shows that assessee is paying commission/service charges @3% for obtaining accommodation entry in form of share capital.” ITA Nos.238 & 239/CHD/2015 & ITA Nos. 831 & 832/CHD/2018 A.Y.2005-6

M/S PNG TRADING PRIVATE LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all four appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

80,00,000/- out of which cash back due (to be paid to the entry provider) is for Rs. 82,40,000/- after adding service charge @ 3%. This clearly shows that assessee is paying commission/service charges @3% for obtaining accommodation entry in form of share capital.” ITA Nos.238 & 239/CHD/2015 & ITA Nos. 831 & 832/CHD/2018 A.Y.2005-6

M/S PNG TRADING PRIVATE LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all four appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

80,00,000/- out of which cash back due (to be paid to the entry provider) is for Rs. 82,40,000/- after adding service charge @ 3%. This clearly shows that assessee is paying commission/service charges @3% for obtaining accommodation entry in form of share capital.” ITA Nos.238 & 239/CHD/2015 & ITA Nos. 831 & 832/CHD/2018 A.Y.2005-6

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH vs. UNIPRO TECHNO INFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the order of the ld CIT(A) is confirmed and the grounds of appeal taken by the Revenue are dismissed

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

80!A of the IT. Act 1961, and the income is 100% exempt for 10 years. It may he mentioned here that this the 2nd year for claiming exemption u/s (i.e. lst year in the hand of Unipro Techno infrastructure for the F.Y. 09-10 and 2nd year in the hand of Unipro Techno Infrastructure Private Limited w.e.f