SH. ANIKET SINGAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

Bench: S/Shri N.K. Saini, Vice- & Rajpal Yadav, Vice-

reassessment, if any, relating to any assessment year falling within the period of six assessment years referred to in this section i.e. section 153A(1) pending on the date of initiation of search under section 132 or making of requisition under section 132A as the case may be, shall abate. It is further observed that apart from present nine appeals

SMT. AARTI SINGAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

Bench: S/Shri N.K. Saini, Vice- & Rajpal Yadav, Vice-

reassessment, if any, relating to any assessment year falling within the period of six assessment years referred to in this section i.e. section 153A(1) pending on the date of initiation of search under section 132 or making of requisition under section 132A as the case may be, shall abate. It is further observed that apart from present nine appeals

SMT. AARTI SINGAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

Bench: S/Shri N.K. Saini, Vice- & Rajpal Yadav, Vice-

reassessment, if any, relating to any assessment year falling within the period of six assessment years referred to in this section i.e. section 153A(1) pending on the date of initiation of search under section 132 or making of requisition under section 132A as the case may be, shall abate. It is further observed that apart from present nine appeals

SH. SANJAY SINGAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

Bench: S/Shri N.K. Saini, Vice- & Rajpal Yadav, Vice-

reassessment, if any, relating to any assessment year falling within the period of six assessment years referred to in this section i.e. section 153A(1) pending on the date of initiation of search under section 132 or making of requisition under section 132A as the case may be, shall abate. It is further observed that apart from present nine appeals

SH. SANJAY SINGAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

Bench: S/Shri N.K. Saini, Vice- & Rajpal Yadav, Vice-

reassessment, if any, relating to any assessment year falling within the period of six assessment years referred to in this section i.e. section 153A(1) pending on the date of initiation of search under section 132 or making of requisition under section 132A as the case may be, shall abate. It is further observed that apart from present nine appeals

SH. SANJAY SINGAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

Bench: S/Shri N.K. Saini, Vice- & Rajpal Yadav, Vice-

reassessment, if any, relating to any assessment year falling within the period of six assessment years referred to in this section i.e. section 153A(1) pending on the date of initiation of search under section 132 or making of requisition under section 132A as the case may be, shall abate. It is further observed that apart from present nine appeals

SMT. AARTI SINGAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

Bench: S/Shri N.K. Saini, Vice- & Rajpal Yadav, Vice-

reassessment, if any, relating to any assessment year falling within the period of six assessment years referred to in this section i.e. section 153A(1) pending on the date of initiation of search under section 132 or making of requisition under section 132A as the case may be, shall abate. It is further observed that apart from present nine appeals

SIKANDER SINGH MALUKA,MOHALI vs. ITO, MOHALI

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptathe I.T.O., Vs. Sh.Sikandar Singh Maluka, Ward 5(1), # 1370, Sector 40-B, Chandigarh. Chandigarh Pan: Abzpm7206N & Sh.Sikandar Singh Maluka, Vs. The I.T.O., # 1370, Sector 40-B, Ward 5(2), Chandigarh. Chandigarh Pan: Abzpm7206N

short ‘the Act’) and addition made on account of Long Term Capital Gains earned on sale of plots of land owned by the assessee amounting to Rs.3.65 crores. An appeal against the aforesaid assessment order was filed to the CIT(Appeals), challenging both the validity of assessment framed u/s 147 of the Act and also merits of the case

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHANDIGARH vs. WINSOME TEXTILE INDUSTRIES LTD, CHANDIGARH

gain of Rs.11,99,000/- which was not treated as a revenue receipt and\nthus in terms of the reasons recorded escaped in-come for A.Y. 2011-12. The\nassessee submitted its reply and after due application of mind, the re- turned\nincome was accepted in terms of order passed under Section 143(3) read with\nSection 147

DCIT, LUDHIANA vs. SH. TAJINDER SINGH, LUDHIANA

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptathe D.C.I.T., Vs. Sh.Tajinder Singh, Circle-6, 1021-Basant City, Part-Ii, Ludhiana. Ludhiana. Pan: Addps7027D (Appellant) (Respondent)

short ‘the Act’) in this case was completed on 30.1.2010. Subsequently, the case was reassessed u/s 147 of the Act assessing the capital gain at Rs.1,68,01,607/- (wrongly mentioned as Rs.1,69,65,484/- in the CIT(A) order para 4.1) as against Nil declared by the assessee. The Assessing Officer noted that the assessee had sold residential

AMARJIT SINGH MARWAHA ,SHIMLA vs. ITO, NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadavआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1379/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Shri Amarjit Singh Marwaha, The Ito, Cottage No.1, Sadhora, Vs Ward-1, Mashobra, Baldeyan, Shimla. Shimla. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aeepm0161N अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Vishal Mohan Sr.Advocate, With Shri Abhinav Bijwaria, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. Cit Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 21.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.01.2026

short ‘the CIT (A)’] dated 28.08.2025 passed for assessment year 2013-14. 2. The assessee has taken three grounds of appeal out of which, ground No. 3 is general ground which does not call for recording of any specific finding. A.Y.2013-14 2 3. In Ground No.1, assessee has challenged re-opening of assessment whereas in ground No. 2, assessee

WINSOME TEXTILE INDUSTRIES LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1), CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

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

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

gain of Rs.11,99,000/- which was not treated as a revenue receipt and thus in terms of the reasons recorded escaped in- come for A.Y. 2011-12. The assessee submitted its reply and after due application of mind, the re- turned income was accepted in terms of order passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 147

RADHA MITTAL,LUDHIANA vs. ITO- WARD 7(3), LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in light

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavradha Mittal, Ito बनाम H. No. 85-A, Aggar Nagar, Ward- 7(3), Ludhiana- 141012 Ludhiana

short the ‘Ld.CIT(A)’] dated 01.05.2019 pertaining to assessment year 2011-12 wherein the assessee has taken the following revised grounds of appeal: “1.That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, ld. CIT-A erred in sustaining the order passed by Ld AO u/s 147/143(3) without appreciating that assumption of jurisdiction u/s

SH. SANJAY SINGAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

short) alongwith residential / business premises of its Directors and other related entities & persons on 03/03/2010. 6. During the course of search certain incriminating documents, papers, books of accounts etc. were found and seized. The A.O. mentioned that the assessee being the Director and key person of the Group filed letter dt. 18/06/2010 before the Investigation Wing surrendering an amount

SMT. AARTI SINGAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

short) alongwith residential / business premises of its Directors and other related entities & persons on 03/03/2010. 6. During the course of search certain incriminating documents, papers, books of accounts etc. were found and seized. The A.O. mentioned that the assessee being the Director and key person of the Group filed letter dt. 18/06/2010 before the Investigation Wing surrendering an amount

SMT. AARTI SINGAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

short) alongwith residential / business premises of its Directors and other related entities & persons on 03/03/2010. 6. During the course of search certain incriminating documents, papers, books of accounts etc. were found and seized. The A.O. mentioned that the assessee being the Director and key person of the Group filed letter dt. 18/06/2010 before the Investigation Wing surrendering an amount

SH. SANJAY SINGAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

short) alongwith residential / business premises of its Directors and other related entities & persons on 03/03/2010. 6. During the course of search certain incriminating documents, papers, books of accounts etc. were found and seized. The A.O. mentioned that the assessee being the Director and key person of the Group filed letter dt. 18/06/2010 before the Investigation Wing surrendering an amount

SMT. AARTI SINGAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

short) alongwith residential / business premises of its Directors and other related entities & persons on 03/03/2010. 6. During the course of search certain incriminating documents, papers, books of accounts etc. were found and seized. The A.O. mentioned that the assessee being the Director and key person of the Group filed letter dt. 18/06/2010 before the Investigation Wing surrendering an amount