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 proceedings as per binding judgement\nof Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of ACIT Vs Teleperformance Global Service\nPvt. Ltd., reported in 170 taxman.com 81.\n3.\nWithout prejudice to the above grounds, the learned CIT (A) has erred\nin law and on facts in applying a Gross Profit (GP) rate of 4% on the alleged\nbogus purchases, without

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 proceedings as per binding judgement\nof Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of ACIT Vs Teleperformance Global Service\nPvt. Ltd., reported in 170 taxman.com 81.\n3.\nWithout prejudice to the above grounds, the learned CIT (A) has erred\nin law and on facts in applying a Gross Profit (GP) rate of 4% on the alleged\nbogus purchases, without

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)

260/- by bringing to tax the whole of the share premium amounting to Rs. 28,26,46,250/-. 4. Being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who has since sustained the addition and against the said findings and the directions of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before

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)

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 Officer shall serve on the assessee

KUSUM MITTAL,SANGRUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - SANGRUR, SANGRUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

147 of the Act and assessment framed u/s 147/144B of the Act are invalid and deserve to be quashed as such. 7. That the information on the basis of which proceedings u/s 148 A were initiated is based only on borrowed information without application of mind much less independent application of mind and hence untenable. 8. That without prejudice

SH. DINESH SETHI,LUDHIANA vs. ITO, LUDHIANA

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 376/Chd/2014 & "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07 Shri Janesh Sethi, Legal Heir Of बनाम The Ito, Late Shri Dinesh Sethi, Ward – 1(1), Vs Prop. M/S R.S. Trading Corp., Ludhiana. C-434, Urban Estate Focal Point, Ludhiana. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan /Tan No: Aaqpk1200Q अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Manav Bansal, Cit Dr तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 23.06.2025 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 04.8.2025

260 ITR 202) following the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in cash of Phool Chand Bajrang Lai Vs. ITO (203 ITR 456). The ratio of the decisions relied upon by the Ld. Counsel would, therefore, not help the case of the appellant. As discussed above on receiving the information regarding the credit entries in the bank account

SHRI DINESH SETHI,LUDHIANA vs. ITO, LUDHIANA

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 376/Chd/2014 & "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07 Shri Janesh Sethi, Legal Heir Of बनाम The Ito, Late Shri Dinesh Sethi, Ward – 1(1), Vs Prop. M/S R.S. Trading Corp., Ludhiana. C-434, Urban Estate Focal Point, Ludhiana. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan /Tan No: Aaqpk1200Q अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Manav Bansal, Cit Dr तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 23.06.2025 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 04.8.2025

260 ITR 202) following the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in cash of Phool Chand Bajrang Lai Vs. ITO (203 ITR 456). The ratio of the decisions relied upon by the Ld. Counsel would, therefore, not help the case of the appellant. As discussed above on receiving the information regarding the credit entries in the bank account

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

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

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

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

ANUP KUMAR AGGARWAL,PANCHKULA vs. ACIT(CENTRAL) SHIMLA, SHIMLA

Appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

Bench: SHRI RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

260/-. The additions stem from search action by the department on assessee-group on 04-11-2022. Subsequent to search action, the case was centralized vide order u/s 127 dated 28-07-2023. Subsequently, a notice u/s 148 was issued on 29-12-2023 which is kept on record in the paper-book. The said notice has been issued

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)

147, computing the total income at Rs. 4,73,64,687/- by disallowing purchases deemed bogus. 3.1 The AO found that M/s Gauri Shankar Trading Co. (GSTC) was a fraudulent entity with no actual business, based on investigations by the DGGI, GST Intelligence, Delhi Zone, and the Income Tax Department’s Investigation Wing. Rahul Pratap Singh, the proprietor of GSTC

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)

147, computing the total income at Rs. 4,73,64,687/- by disallowing purchases deemed bogus. 3.1 The AO found that M/s Gauri Shankar Trading Co. (GSTC) was a fraudulent entity with no actual business, based on investigations by the DGGI, GST Intelligence, Delhi Zone, and the Income Tax Department’s Investigation Wing. Rahul Pratap Singh, the proprietor of GSTC

RADHIKA GOEL,PARWANOO vs. DCIT, CC-II, CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

260/- after claiming deduction of Rs. 1,17,695/-. The assessee repeated in income which was disclosed in the original return of income filed on 28/10/2014. The A.O. however framed the assessment at an income of Rs. 37,10,866/- by making the addition of Rs. 23,64,606 i.e; LTCG amounting