SH.RANDHIR SINGH,MOHALI vs. PR.CIT-1, CHANDIGARH

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

u/s 143(2)was required to be issued by the Assessing Officer, the AO while framing order under Section 147 has not examined this issue and has not discussed this in the order issued by him”. “Further the interest charged under Section 234A and 234B has been ITA 37/CHD/2021 A.Y. 2010-11 12 short levied as it has been levied

IPF VIKRAM INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE, PANCHKULA, PANCHKULA

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

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

u/s 143(3) on 29.09.2016 and as such upholding of reopening on wrong facts is illegal, arbitrary and unjustified. 4. Without prejudice to the above, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) has erred in directing the assessing officer to verify the payment of Rs.18,63,488/- with the due dates of the Employees contribution on the basis of decision

PAWAN GARG,PANCHKULA vs. ITO WARD 5((5) CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1218/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Pawan Garg, The Ito, House No. 766, Sector 16, Vs Ward 5(5), Panchkula. Chandigarh. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Abmpg4243N अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ajay Jain, Ca Revenue By : Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. Cit Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 27.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 02.02.2026

234C and 234D as per the provisions of IT. Act, 1961. Penalty proceedings u/s 271F for non-filing of ITR in respect to the notice u/s 148 of the IT. Act 1961, penalty proceedings u/s 271 (1)(b) for noncompliance of notices u/s 142(1) and penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) for concealing the income or for furnishing inaccurate

WARYAM STEEL CASTINGS PRIVATE LIMITED,LUDHIANA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, LUDHIANA

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

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

reassessment proceedings have not been provided. 2. That the order dated 10.05.2024 passed u/s 250 of the Act by the National faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC). Delhi is against law and (acts on the (lie in as much as he was not justified to uphold the action of the Ld. Assessing Officer. Assessment Unit. Income Tax Department in restricting the addition

ASTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, LUDHIANA, AAYAKAR BHAWAN vs. WARYAM STEEL CASTING PRIVATE LIMITED, KANGANWAL ROAD

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

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

reassessment proceedings have not been provided. 2. That the order dated 10.05.2024 passed u/s 250 of the Act by the National faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC). Delhi is against law and (acts on the (lie in as much as he was not justified to uphold the action of the Ld. Assessing Officer. Assessment Unit. Income Tax Department in restricting the addition