DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, LUDHIANA , LUDHIANA vs. ROSHA ALLOYS PVT. LTD., MANDI GOBINDGARH

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed,\nwhereas the appeals of the assessee are allowed

reassessment under Sections 147 and 148 of the\nAct, the existence of information suggesting escapement of income\ncontinues to be a foundational jurisdictional requirement. The Hon'ble\nCourt clarified that the benchmark under the amended law remains\naligned with the earlier threshold of “reason to believe,” and that the\npower under Section 147 cannot be invoked in the absence

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, LUDHIANA , LUDHIANA vs. ROSHA ALLOYS PVT. LTD., MANDI GOBINDGARH

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed,\nwhereas the appeals of the assessee are allowed

reassessment under Sections 147 and 148 of the\nAct, the existence of information suggesting escapement of income\ncontinues to be a foundational jurisdictional requirement. The Hon'ble\nCourt clarified that the benchmark under the amended law remains\naligned with the earlier threshold of “reason to believe,” and that the\npower under Section 147 cannot be invoked in the absence

SUBHASH CHANDER GUPTA, H.NO. 16528 VISHNU COLONY, RALIWAY ROAD, KURUKSHETRA,HARYANA vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KURUKSHETRA

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahay

245 taxman 209 (Del) vide order dated 06.01.2017. 5. Judgment in the case of ITO Amritsar vs. Arun Kumar Kapoor passed by ITAT, Amritsar ; Bench ITA No. 147(ASR)/2010. 8. The ld. CIT DR on the other hand contended that a perusal of Section 153C would indicate that where the evidence pertaining to assessee unearthed during the course

SUBHASH CHANDER GUPTA, H.NO. 1652 8 VISHNU COLONY, RAILWAY ROAD, KURUKSHETRA,HARYANA vs. ITO WARD-3, KURUKSHETRA, HARYANA

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahay

245 taxman 209 (Del) vide order dated 06.01.2017. 5. Judgment in the case of ITO Amritsar vs. Arun Kumar Kapoor passed by ITAT, Amritsar ; Bench ITA No. 147(ASR)/2010. 8. The ld. CIT DR on the other hand contended that a perusal of Section 153C would indicate that where the evidence pertaining to assessee unearthed during the course

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

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

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (IN SITU) CIRCLE-I, , LUDHIANA vs. KAPIL THAPAR, LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed and Cross

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

245 taxman 209 (Del) vide order dated 06.01.2017. e. Judgment in the case of ITO Amritsar vs. Arun Kumar Kapoor passed by ITAT, Amritsar; Bench ITA No. 147(ASR)/2010. vi) It is further argued that section 153C reads as under:- 153C. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in section-139, section- 147, section-148, section-149, section-151 and section

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

In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed

245 ITR 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

INCOME TAX OFFICER, MOHALI vs. GURTEJ SINGH, MOHALI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

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

245, Sector 16A Circle-1, Chandigarh Chandigarh "ायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AFFPK4564F अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ"/Respondent िनधा"रती की ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Yogesh Monga, C.A राज" की ओर से/ Revenue by : Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 08/04/2025 उदघोषणा की तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 24/04/2025 आदेश/Order PER LALIET KUMAR, J.M: These

KANWALDEEP KAUR,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

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

245, Sector 16A Circle-1, Chandigarh Chandigarh "ायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AFFPK4564F अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ"/Respondent िनधा"रती की ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Yogesh Monga, C.A राज" की ओर से/ Revenue by : Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 08/04/2025 उदघोषणा की तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 24/04/2025 आदेश/Order PER LALIET KUMAR, J.M: These

M/S GANESH BUILDERS,PANCHKULA vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the respective appeals and stay applications are disposed off in light of aforesaid directions

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

u/s 153D, as part of the assessment record and draft assessment order, even though addition was made by the Ld. AO on 54 plots for which documents were found during the search. The Ld. AR highlighted the affidavit from Shri Kashmiri Lal which is also part of seized record in respect of those 4 plots which affidavit contained completely different

M/S LUXMI BUILDERS,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the respective appeals and stay applications are disposed off in light of aforesaid directions

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

u/s 153D, as part of the assessment record and draft assessment order, even though addition was made by the Ld. AO on 54 plots for which documents were found during the search. The Ld. AR highlighted the affidavit from Shri Kashmiri Lal which is also part of seized record in respect of those 4 plots which affidavit contained completely different

AJIT SINGH,PATIALA vs. ITO, PATIALA

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

Bench: Us, The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Has Submitted An Application For Condonation Of Delay Along With An Affidavit, Which Is Reproduced As Under:-

245 days in filing of the appeal. During the proceedings before us, the ld. Counsel for the Assessee has submitted an application for condonation of delay along with an Affidavit, which is reproduced as under:- 3. I have considered the reasoning given in the affidavit and inclined to condone the delay. 4. The ld. DR did not have any objection

M/S FASTWAY TRANSMISSION (P) LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-II, CHANDIGARH

In the result the captioned appeals of the assessee are

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sanjay Gargआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.547/Chd/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14

245 ITR 492 (Del.) - CIT v. Dalmia Promoters Developers (P) Ltd: 281 ITR 346 (Del.) - DIT v. Escorts Cardiac Diseases Hospital: 300 ITR 75 (Del.) - CIT v. P. KhrishnaWarrier: 208 ITR 823 (Ker) - CIT v Harishchandra Gupta 132 ITR 799 (Ori) - CIT v. SewaBharti Haryana Pradesh: 325 ITR 599 (P&H) - CIT v. Rajasthan Breweries Limited.: ITA 889/2009

M/S FASTWAY TRANSMISSION (P) LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. ACIT, CHANDIGARH

In the result the captioned appeals of the assessee are

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sanjay Gargआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.547/Chd/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14

245 ITR 492 (Del.) - CIT v. Dalmia Promoters Developers (P) Ltd: 281 ITR 346 (Del.) - DIT v. Escorts Cardiac Diseases Hospital: 300 ITR 75 (Del.) - CIT v. P. KhrishnaWarrier: 208 ITR 823 (Ker) - CIT v Harishchandra Gupta 132 ITR 799 (Ori) - CIT v. SewaBharti Haryana Pradesh: 325 ITR 599 (P&H) - CIT v. Rajasthan Breweries Limited.: ITA 889/2009

M/S FASTWAY TRANSMISSION (P) LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-II, CHANDIGARH

In the result the captioned appeals of the assessee are

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sanjay Gargआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.547/Chd/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14

245 ITR 492 (Del.) - CIT v. Dalmia Promoters Developers (P) Ltd: 281 ITR 346 (Del.) - DIT v. Escorts Cardiac Diseases Hospital: 300 ITR 75 (Del.) - CIT v. P. KhrishnaWarrier: 208 ITR 823 (Ker) - CIT v Harishchandra Gupta 132 ITR 799 (Ori) - CIT v. SewaBharti Haryana Pradesh: 325 ITR 599 (P&H) - CIT v. Rajasthan Breweries Limited.: ITA 889/2009

DCIT, C-1, (E), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S MANAV MANGAL SOCIETY, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the department are dismissed

section 13(1)(c) is to judge the reasonableness of the payments made to the members of the society and secondly and more importantly, there is no finding of the AO that the society is not working towards the objects of education etc. as defined in its Memorandum and Rules and Regulations. No case of siphoning off of the funds

DCIT, C-1, (E), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S MANAV MANGAL SOCIETY, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the department are dismissed

section 13(1)(c) is to judge the reasonableness of the payments made to the members of the society and secondly and more importantly, there is no finding of the AO that the society is not working towards the objects of education etc. as defined in its Memorandum and Rules and Regulations. No case of siphoning off of the funds