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

B. Finance Act 2003: Replaced the provisions related to  search assessments with Sections 153A to 153D. C. Finance Act 2021 and 2022: Subsumed the provisions of  search assessment under Sections 147, Explanation 2 to Section 148, Section 149, Section 148B, and Section 151 of the Act. Thus, the legislature, through various amendments, has consistently covered assessment matters related to search

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

B. Finance Act 2003: Replaced the provisions related to  search assessments with Sections 153A to 153D. C. Finance Act 2021 and 2022: Subsumed the provisions of  search assessment under Sections 147, Explanation 2 to Section 148, Section 149, Section 148B, and Section 151 of the Act. Thus, the legislature, through various amendments, has consistently covered assessment matters related to search

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

120 of the assessment order, for the cost of repetition the same is not reproduced herein. 13.2 The A.O. on the basis of the aforesaid excel sheet observed that in the column of ‘Party’ various names were mentioned like Roshan, Mishra, Pramod, Kabra, SKJ, Sunil, Subhas, Ravi, NSE, LKS etc and the particulars mentioned in the ‘Account’ were important

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

120 of the assessment order, for the cost of repetition the same is not reproduced herein. 13.2 The A.O. on the basis of the aforesaid excel sheet observed that in the column of ‘Party’ various names were mentioned like Roshan, Mishra, Pramod, Kabra, SKJ, Sunil, Subhas, Ravi, NSE, LKS etc and the particulars mentioned in the ‘Account’ were important

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

120 of the assessment order, for the cost of repetition the same is not reproduced herein. 13.2 The A.O. on the basis of the aforesaid excel sheet observed that in the column of ‘Party’ various names were mentioned like Roshan, Mishra, Pramod, Kabra, SKJ, Sunil, Subhas, Ravi, NSE, LKS etc and the particulars mentioned in the ‘Account’ were important

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

120 of the assessment order, for the cost of repetition the same is not reproduced herein. 13.2 The A.O. on the basis of the aforesaid excel sheet observed that in the column of ‘Party’ various names were mentioned like Roshan, Mishra, Pramod, Kabra, SKJ, Sunil, Subhas, Ravi, NSE, LKS etc and the particulars mentioned in the ‘Account’ were important

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

120 of the assessment order, for the cost of repetition the same is not reproduced herein. 13.2 The A.O. on the basis of the aforesaid excel sheet observed that in the column of ‘Party’ various names were mentioned like Roshan, Mishra, Pramod, Kabra, SKJ, Sunil, Subhas, Ravi, NSE, LKS etc and the particulars mentioned in the ‘Account’ were important

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

120 of the assessment order, for the cost of repetition the same is not reproduced herein. 13.2 The A.O. on the basis of the aforesaid excel sheet observed that in the column of ‘Party’ various names were mentioned like Roshan, Mishra, Pramod, Kabra, SKJ, Sunil, Subhas, Ravi, NSE, LKS etc and the particulars mentioned in the ‘Account’ were important

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

reassessment order, as the case may be, is required to be passed by the\nAssessing Officer with the prior approval of the Principal Commissioner or\nCommissioner under sub-section (12) of section 144BA”\n10. In view of the above provision, the ld. Counsel for the Assessee stated that the\nCIT(A) has explained the procedure contained in Instruction No. F.No

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

reassessment order, as the case may be, is required to be passed by the\nAssessing Officer with the prior approval of the Principal Commissioner or\nCommissioner under sub-section (12) of section 144BA”\n10. In view of the above provision, the ld. Counsel for the Assessee stated that the\nCIT(A) has explained the procedure contained in Instruction No. F.No

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

reassessment order, as the case may be, is required to be passed by the\nAssessing Officer with the prior approval of the Principal Commissioner or\nCommissioner under sub-section (12) of section 144BA”\n10. In view of the above provision, the ld. Counsel for the Assessee stated that the\nCIT(A) has explained the procedure contained in Instruction No. F.No

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

reassessment order, as the case may be, is required to be passed by the\nAssessing Officer with the prior approval of the Principal Commissioner or\nCommissioner under sub-section (12) of section 144BA”\n10. In view of the above provision, the ld. Counsel for the Assessee stated that the\nCIT(A) has explained the procedure contained in Instruction No. F.No

M/S RPA DEVELOPERS,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-III, LUDHIANA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Gupta

B-IX/55, 1stFloor, III, Gur Mandi, Ludhiana Ludhiana "थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AAKFR2156C अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee by : Sh. Pankaj Bhalla, CA राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue by : Smt. Anita Sinha, CIT DR alongwith Sh. Bhupinder Singh, concerned DCIT. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 27.09.2018 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख

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

B’, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 282 & 334/CHD/2023 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Satnam Singh, Vs. ITO, बनाम # 3079, Ward 9, Ward 6(4), Kharar, Mohali District Mohali, Punjab "थायी लेखा सं./PAN No: CDRPS2003M अपीलाथ"/ APPELLANT ""यथ"/ REPSONDENT ( HYBRID MODE ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Parikshit Aggarwal

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

B’, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 282 & 334/CHD/2023 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Satnam Singh, Vs. ITO, बनाम # 3079, Ward 9, Ward 6(4), Kharar, Mohali District Mohali, Punjab "थायी लेखा सं./PAN No: CDRPS2003M अपीलाथ"/ APPELLANT ""यथ"/ REPSONDENT ( HYBRID MODE ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Parikshit Aggarwal

SH. KASHMIR SINGH SANDHA,SIRSA vs. PCIT, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

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

reassessment proceedings against the assessee is found to be invalid, bad in law, arbitrary and illegal, having no legal foundation and thus quashed. Ordered accordingly.” vii) 205 ITD 31 (Mum) Reuters Asia Pacific Ltd. v. DCIT viii) dated 3.7.2025 J Kumar Infraprojects Ltd. vs. DCIT 13. The requirement of signature on the notice or document issued is not merely formality

SH. ARVAIL SINGH,SIRSA vs. PCIT, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

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

reassessment proceedings against the assessee is found to be invalid, bad in law, arbitrary and illegal, having no legal foundation and thus quashed. Ordered accordingly.” vii) 205 ITD 31 (Mum) Reuters Asia Pacific Ltd. v. DCIT viii) dated 3.7.2025 J Kumar Infraprojects Ltd. vs. DCIT 13. The requirement of signature on the notice or document issued is not merely formality

SURJEET SINGH,SIRSA vs. PCIT, ROHTAK, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

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

reassessment proceedings against the assessee is found to be invalid, bad in law, arbitrary and illegal, having no legal foundation and thus quashed. Ordered accordingly.” vii) 205 ITD 31 (Mum) Reuters Asia Pacific Ltd. v. DCIT viii) dated 3.7.2025 J Kumar Infraprojects Ltd. vs. DCIT 13. The requirement of signature on the notice or document issued is not merely formality

SH. PARAMJEET SINGH,SIRSA vs. PCIT, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

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

reassessment proceedings against the assessee is found to be invalid, bad in law, arbitrary and illegal, having no legal foundation and thus quashed. Ordered accordingly.” vii) 205 ITD 31 (Mum) Reuters Asia Pacific Ltd. v. DCIT viii) dated 3.7.2025 J Kumar Infraprojects Ltd. vs. DCIT 13. The requirement of signature on the notice or document issued is not merely formality