LATE SH. RAJ KUMAR WADHWA THROUGH L/H SMT. USHA WADHWA,PATIALA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE, PATIALA

In the result, the above appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: The Appeal Is Finally Heard Or Disposed Off.” 3. Ground No 1 & 4 Being General In Nature Need No Adjudication.

159. (1) Where a person dies, his legal representative shall be liable to pay any sum which the deceased would have been liable to pay if he had not died, in the like manner and to the same extent as the deceased. (2) For the purpose of making an assessment (including an assessment, reassessment or recomputation under section 147

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

SH. DINESH SETHI,LUDHIANA vs. ITO, LUDHIANA

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 376/Chd/2014 & "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07 Shri Janesh Sethi, Legal Heir Of बनाम The Ito, Late Shri Dinesh Sethi, Ward – 1(1), Vs Prop. M/S R.S. Trading Corp., Ludhiana. C-434, Urban Estate Focal Point, Ludhiana. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan /Tan No: Aaqpk1200Q अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Manav Bansal, Cit Dr तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 23.06.2025 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 04.8.2025

reassessment proceedings were not valid." The copy of the judgment is in the Judgment Set at pages 34 to 36. xiv). In our case, neither the person, whose signatures are there is an employee or a family member, which we have challenged at the first instance and, therefore, the service of notice is bad in law. Similarly, in the other

SHRI DINESH SETHI,LUDHIANA vs. ITO, LUDHIANA

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 376/Chd/2014 & "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07 Shri Janesh Sethi, Legal Heir Of बनाम The Ito, Late Shri Dinesh Sethi, Ward – 1(1), Vs Prop. M/S R.S. Trading Corp., Ludhiana. C-434, Urban Estate Focal Point, Ludhiana. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan /Tan No: Aaqpk1200Q अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Manav Bansal, Cit Dr तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 23.06.2025 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 04.8.2025

reassessment proceedings were not valid." The copy of the judgment is in the Judgment Set at pages 34 to 36. xiv). In our case, neither the person, whose signatures are there is an employee or a family member, which we have challenged at the first instance and, therefore, the service of notice is bad in law. Similarly, in the other

INCOME TAX OFFICER, MOHALI PUNJAB vs. TAJ LAND DEVELOPEFRS AND PROMOTERS PRIVATE LIMITED , SECTOR MOHALI PUNJAB

In the result, appeal is dismissed

147, finding its basis in the\naforesaid reasons, to be an invalid notice, in keeping with the decision of the\nHon'ble Supreme Court in 'Kelvinator of India Ltd.' (supra), as considered in\n'Dr.Ajit Gupta' (supra). Consequently, all proceedings pursuant thereto,\nculminating in the impugned order for the A.Y. 2007-08, are also held to be null\nand void

SHRI RAKESH KUMAR KATARIA,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT-CC-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal is allowed as indicated

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 159/Chd/2020 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Shri Rakesh Kumar Kataria Vs. The Dcit, Central Circle, बनाम Chandigarh Sco 862, Prop. Subhinfra, Ist Floor, Nac, Manimajra, Chandigarh "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aespk5238A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal, Ca राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Dharamvir, Jcit, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 05.03.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 15.04.2024 आदेश/Order

reassessment, if any, has been made. 5.2 The ld. DR has further contended that in this case, the Assessee filed his return of income on 18.03.2013 and notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued on 07.08.2013, and that therefore, notice u/s 153C of the Act was neither called for, nor issued. 5.3 The ld. DR has further contended

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)

147. Reference is also made to explanatory circular no. 5/2010 dated 03.06.2010 to the provisions of Finance Act (No.2) of 2009 reported in 324 ITR 293 (St) at page 341, provides as under: 46. delayed compensation or on enhanced compensation 46.1 The existing provisions of Income Tax Act provide that income chargeable under the head "Profits and gains of business

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)

147. Reference is also made to explanatory circular no. 5/2010 dated 03.06.2010 to the provisions of Finance Act (No.2) of 2009 reported in 324 ITR 293 (St) at page 341, provides as under: 46. delayed compensation or on enhanced compensation 46.1 The existing provisions of Income Tax Act provide that income chargeable under the head "Profits and gains of business

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)

147. Reference is also made to explanatory circular no. 5/2010 dated 03.06.2010 to the provisions of Finance Act (No.2) of 2009 reported in 324 ITR 293 (St) at page 341, provides as under: 46. delayed compensation or on enhanced compensation 46.1 The existing provisions of Income Tax Act provide that income chargeable under the head "Profits and gains of business

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)

147. Reference is also made to explanatory circular no. 5/2010 dated 03.06.2010 to the provisions of Finance Act (No.2) of 2009 reported in 324 ITR 293 (St) at page 341, provides as under: 46. delayed compensation or on enhanced compensation 46.1 The existing provisions of Income Tax Act provide that income chargeable under the head "Profits and gains of business

M/S GANESH DASS HUF,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)

147. Reference is also made to explanatory circular no. 5/2010 dated 03.06.2010 to the provisions of Finance Act (No.2) of 2009 reported in 324 ITR 293 (St) at page 341, provides as under: 46. delayed compensation or on enhanced compensation 46.1 The existing provisions of Income Tax Act provide that income chargeable under the head "Profits and gains of business

DHUNI CHAND HUF,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)

147. Reference is also made to explanatory circular no. 5/2010 dated 03.06.2010 to the provisions of Finance Act (No.2) of 2009 reported in 324 ITR 293 (St) at page 341, provides as under: 46. delayed compensation or on enhanced compensation 46.1 The existing provisions of Income Tax Act provide that income chargeable under the head "Profits and gains of business

SH. RANDHIR 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)

147. Reference is also made to explanatory circular no. 5/2010 dated 03.06.2010 to the provisions of Finance Act (No.2) of 2009 reported in 324 ITR 293 (St) at page 341, provides as under: 46. delayed compensation or on enhanced compensation 46.1 The existing provisions of Income Tax Act provide that income chargeable under the head "Profits and gains of business

VANEET GUPTA, S.O. SH. CHATTUR BHUJ GUPTA, #214, SECTOR-06,PANCHKULA vs. PCIT PANCHKULA JURISDICTIONAL ASSESSING OFFICER ITO WARD 5, PANCHKULA , PANCHKULA

In the result, Assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Dr Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 560/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Vaneet Gupta, Vs. The Ito, बनाम S.O. Shri Chattur Bhuj Ward 5, Gupta, Panchkula # 214, Sector 6, Panchkula "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aphpg0692N अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent ( Hybrid Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Smt. Kusum Bansal, Cit Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 04.12.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20.01.2025 आदेश/Order Per Krinwant Sahay, A.M.:

159 taxman.com 1628, in which, since the Income Tax Practitioner advised the assessee not to file the appeal against the order passed by the Ld. PCIT, the condonation of 1740 days were condoned. Along with the application of condonation, the affidavit of the assessee was also filed on identical facts, which has been placed on record

SH. BALJINDER KUMAR AGGARWAL 171, MODEL TOWN LUDHIANA,PUNJAB vs. JATIN ABBI THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1 LUDHIANA, PUNJAB

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 689/Chd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 बनाम Shri Baljinder Kumar Aggarwal, The Acit, 171, Model Town, Circle-1, Vs Ludhiana. Ludhiana. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan /Tan No: Bmcpk7473A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent िनधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Manav Bansal, Cit, Dr तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21.08.2025 उदघोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 17.09.2025

159 taxmann.com 649 (BOM-HC). 19. Judgment in the case of ITO vs. Dr. R.L. Narang as reported in [2008] 174 taxman 96 (CHD) (MAG.) 20. Judgment in the case of CIT vs. Pashupati Nath Agro Food Products Pvt. Ltd in ITA No. 165 of 2010 (Allahabad HC). 21. Judgment in the case of PCIT vs. Kishore Kumar Mohapatra