ACIT, CIRCLE 1(1), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S SML ISUZU LTD., CHANDIGARH

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

250 of the Act, which is hereinafter referred to as the “impugned order”. 2. At the outset the Registry has pointed out that the appeal filed by the Revenue is time barred by 05 days for which Revenue has filed a condonation of delay application. 3. Delay of 05 days is condoned for which Revenue has shown sufficient cause

M/S JAIN AMAR CLOTHING PVT. LTD.,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-III, LUDHIANA

In the result, the ground no

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

147, Section 148, Section 149, Section 151 and Section 153, in the case of a person where a search is initiated under section 132 or books of account, other documents or any assets are requisitioned under section 132-A after the 31st day of May, 2003, the Assessing Officer shall— (a) issue notice to such person requiring him to furnish

M/S KAUR SAIN SPINNING & WEAVING MILLS LTD.,LUDHIANA vs. ACIT, CC-II, LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri R.L Negiआयकर अपीलसं./Ita Nos. 1374/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S Kaur Sain Spinning & बनाम The Acit, Weaving Mills Ltd., Central Circle-Ii, A-17, Phase Iii, Ludhiana Focal Point, Ludhiana "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Aabck6909J अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Hearing Through Video Conferencing "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे/Assessee By : Shri Ashwani Kumar, Ca राज"वक"ओरसे/ Revenue By : Smt. Meenakshi Vohra, Addl. Cit सुनवाईक"तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 18.01.2021 उदघोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 16.04.2021 आदेश/Order Per R.L. Negi:

250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1962 by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Ludhiana is against law and facts on the file in as much as he was not justified to arbitrarily uphold the action of the Ld. Assessing Officer in resorting to provisions of Sec. 148. 2. That the Ld. Commisisoner of Income Tax (Appeals

M/S GREATER MOHALI AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MOHALI vs. DCIT, C-6(1), MOHALI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year : 2009-10

reassessment beyond the period of four years. Therefore the section postulates a duty on every assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment. 6. A catena of judgments, both of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and of the Hon’ble High Courts have given judgments bringing certain broad principles on this issue. The undersigned

MASTER TRUST LIMITED,LUDHIANA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUDHIANA

In the result, ground no. 1 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed

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

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi is against law and facts on the file in as much as he was not justified to uphold the action of the Learned Assessing Officer in initiating proceedings u/s 147. 2. That the Learned CIT (Appeals), NFAC, was not justified to arbitrarily uphold

SH. SANJEEV BHARADWAJ,LUDHIANA vs. ACIT, LUDHIANA

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessees are

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms.Annapurna Gupta

250 & 251/M/2013 decided on 20.02.2014 (One of us being party to that order). The Tribunal has discussed the issue in detail and has made the following observations: “8. The learned DR has also filed written submissions. To stress his point that the return processed u/s. 143(1) cannot be said to be an assessment but a mere intimation

SH. SANJEEV BHARADWAJ,LUDHIANA vs. ACIT, LUDHIANA

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessees are

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms.Annapurna Gupta

250 & 251/M/2013 decided on 20.02.2014 (One of us being party to that order). The Tribunal has discussed the issue in detail and has made the following observations: “8. The learned DR has also filed written submissions. To stress his point that the return processed u/s. 143(1) cannot be said to be an assessment but a mere intimation

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

250 & 251/M/2013 decided on 20.02.2014 (One of us being party to that order). The Tribunal has discussed the issue in detail and has made the following observations: “8. The learned DR has also filed written submissions. To stress his point that the return processed u/s. 143(1) cannot be said to be an assessment but a mere intimation

SMT. SHALU SOOD,INDORE vs. DCIT, CC-II, LUDHIANA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr.B.R.R.Kumar

250 & 251/M/2013 decided on 20.02.2014 (One of us being party to that order). The Tribunal has discussed the issue in detail and has made the following observations: “8. The learned DR has also filed written submissions. To stress his point that the return processed u/s. 143(1) cannot be said to be an assessment but a mere intimation

SH. KRISHAN KUMAR GOYAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee stand allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 226/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08 The Dcit, Shri Krishan Kumar Goyal, बनाम Central Circle-1, Prop Sagar Enterprise, Chandigarh Scf 153, Sector 26, Grain Market, Chandigarh "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. Agipk9063H अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 456/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08 The Dcit, Shri Krishan Kumar Goyal, बनाम Central Circle-1, Prop Sagar Enterprise, Chandigarh Scf 153, Sector 26, Grain Market, Chandigarh "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. Agipk9063H अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

250 & 251/M/2013 decided on 20.02.2014 (One of us being party to that order). The Tribunal has discussed the issue in detail and has made the following observations: “8. The learned DR has also filed written submissions. To stress his point that the return processed u/s. 143(1) cannot be said to be an assessment but a mere intimation

SH. KRISHAN KUMAR GOYAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee stand allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 226/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08 The Dcit, Shri Krishan Kumar Goyal, बनाम Central Circle-1, Prop Sagar Enterprise, Chandigarh Scf 153, Sector 26, Grain Market, Chandigarh "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. Agipk9063H अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 456/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08 The Dcit, Shri Krishan Kumar Goyal, बनाम Central Circle-1, Prop Sagar Enterprise, Chandigarh Scf 153, Sector 26, Grain Market, Chandigarh "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. Agipk9063H अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

250 & 251/M/2013 decided on 20.02.2014 (One of us being party to that order). The Tribunal has discussed the issue in detail and has made the following observations: “8. The learned DR has also filed written submissions. To stress his point that the return processed u/s. 143(1) cannot be said to be an assessment but a mere intimation

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE II, CHANDIGARH vs. M/S SAB UDYOG LIMITED, CHANDIGARH

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

250 & 251/M/2013 decided on 20.02.2014 (One of us being party to that order). The Tribunal has discussed the issue in detail and has made the following observations: “8. The learned DR has also filed written submissions. To stress his point that the return processed u/s. 143(1) cannot be said to be an assessment but a mere intimation

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE II, CHANDIGARH vs. M/S SAB UDYOG LIMITED, CHANDIGARH

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

250 & 251/M/2013 decided on 20.02.2014 (One of us being party to that order). The Tribunal has discussed the issue in detail and has made the following observations: “8. The learned DR has also filed written submissions. To stress his point that the return processed u/s. 143(1) cannot be said to be an assessment but a mere intimation

ANISH GARG,PATIALA vs. ITO WARD-4, PATIALA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

250(4).\n6. That CIT(A) while rejecting the additional evidence application failed to\nappreciate that the law is well settled on the issue that technicalities should not\nhinder the cause of justice.\n7. That the CIT(A) has wrongly upheld that addition of Rs 4,80,000/- made by AO\non account of addition to capital the same

DCIT, C-1(1) , CHANDIGARH vs. M/S FIDELITY INFORMATION SERVICES INDIA PVT. LTD., CHANDIGARH

In the result, the cross-objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

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

250 or section 254 or section 260 or section 262 or section 263 or section 264, the amount on which interest was payable under sub-section (1) or sub-section (3) has been increased or reduced, as the case may be, the interest shall be increased or reduced accordingly, and- - In a case where the interest is increased, the Assessing

M/S INTERNATIONAL CUSTOMER RELATED MANAGEMENT SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE 6(1), MOHALI

In the result, for statistical purposes, the appeal is

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

reassessment proceedings under section 147 of the Act having being initiated merely on the basis of information received, without independent application of mind by the assessing officer to such information and forming opinion thereof, is illegal and bad in law. 4.4. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the assessing officer erred in making additions

DCIT, CC-3, LUDHIANA, KITCHLU NAGAR vs. MANI RAM BALWANT RAI HUF, CIVIL LINES

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

250 of the Act dated 19.07.2024, partly allowing the appeal. 3.2 The summary of additions and their outcome before the first appellate authority is as under: Issue Addition made Addition Remarks by AO sustained by CIT(A) Sale suppression 4,94,63,415/- 55,06,010/- The CIT(A) upheld sale suppression but quantified

AJAY TANTA,SHIMLA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, SHIMLA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

u/s 69A of the Act, on account of cash deposits/credits in bank accounts treated as unexplained money, without 2 considering the facts of the case and without observing the principles of natural justice. 6. That the appellant craves the leave to add, modify, amend or delete any of the grounds of appeal at the time of hearing

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.

250(6)) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. That the Ld. CIT (Appeals), Patiala has erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer with regard to reopening of the case u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act and in proceeding to reassess