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

SCOTT EDIL ADVANCE RESEARCH LABORATORIES AND EDUCATION LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH

reassess the income of the\nother person in accordance with the provisions of section 153A, if, that Assessing Officer\nis satisfied that the books of account or documents or assets seized or requisitioned have\na bearing on the determination of the total income of such other person for six assessment\nyears immediately preceding the assessment year relevant to the previous

SANJEEV AGGARWAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 , CHANDIGARH

reassess the income of the\nother person in accordance with the provisions of section 153A, if, that Assessing Officer\nis satisfied that the books of account or documents or assets seized or requisitioned have\na bearing on the determination of the total income of such other person for six assessment\nyears immediately preceding the assessment year relevant to the previous

MAXPORT INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

reassess the income of the\nother person in accordance with the provisions of section 153A, if, that Assessing Officer\nis satisfied that the books of account or documents or assets seized or requisitioned have\na bearing on the determination of the total income of such other person for six assessment\nyears immediately preceding the assessment year relevant to the previous

KISSAN FATS LTD.,BATHINDA vs. DCIT, CC-1, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

250(6) of the Act, which is hereinafter referred to as the “impugned order”. FACTUAL MATRIX 2. The assessee is a company under the Companies Act, 1956/2013. The assessee is into the business of manufacturing vanaspati ghee and refined oil and had filed return of income at rs. 2,07,78,950/- on 30/09/2013. 3. The assessee maintains audited books

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

6. Being aggrieved of the order of the CIT(A) on this issue, the assessee, thus, has come up in appeal before us. 7. At the outset, ld. counsel for the assessee has submitted that the impugned additions have not been made by the Assessing Officer on the basis of any alleged incriminating material fond during the course of search

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

6. Being aggrieved of the order of the CIT(A) on this issue, the assessee, thus, has come up in appeal before us. 7. At the outset, ld. counsel for the assessee has submitted that the impugned additions have not been made by the Assessing Officer on the basis of any alleged incriminating material fond during the course of search

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

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

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

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

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

6. Being aggrieved of the order of the CIT(A) on this issue, the assessee, thus, has come up in appeal before us. 7. At the outset, ld. counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions as were made before the CIT(A). It has been pleaded by the Ld. AR that the original assessment proceedings for the assessment year under

AMARJIT SINGH,LUDHIANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD 6(1) LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA

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

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 1171 /Chd/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Shri Amarjit Singh बनाम The ITO C/o V V Bhalla & Company Ward 6(1) SCF-39, Rishi Nagar Main Market, Ludhiana Adjoining Subway, Ludhiana-141001, Punjab स्थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: ABTPS8558B अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by : Shri Pankaj Bhalla, C.A राजस्व की ओर से/ Revenue by : Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr

147 r.w.s 144 without giving proper opportunity of being heard in contravention to the principles of natural justice i.e. audi alteram partem. 8. That the Ld. C.I.T.(A), NFAC, Delhi has failed to appreciate that the Ld. AO erred in law & facts in initiating penalty proceeding u/s 270A and 272A(1)(d) of the Act, without any base & reasons thereof