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

147 would defeat the very purpose of the amendment and open the floodgates to arbitrary assessments. 26. The relevant extract Memorandum explaining the finance bill is reproduced as under:- ‘(ii) Assessments or reassessments or in re-computation in cases where search is initiated under section 132 or requisition is made under 132A, after 31st March 2021, shall be under

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

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

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 2 Assessment Year: 2016-17 was without jurisdiction which make

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. 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

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. 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

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)

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. 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)

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

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)

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

ITO, W-4(2), LUDHIANA vs. M/S SWARAN FASTNERS, LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed

160 (M.P.) 10. We have considered the submissions of both the parties and perused the material available on the record. In the present case it is noticed that the assessee explained the source of the partner Smt. Swaran Kanta for depositing the amount of Rs. 20,50,000/- in the capital account. The said amount was received by the partner

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.:

147 of the income tax, dated 24.10.2018 and holding the same as erroneous, in so far as, prejudicial to the interest of revenue. 2. That the Ld. PCIT has failed to appreciate that the assessment was framed by the Ld. Assessing Officer vide order, dated 24.10.2018 after due application of mind relating to investment in immoveable property and also credits