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. 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

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

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

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

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

PAWAN GARG,PANCHKULA vs. ITO WARD 5((5) CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1218/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Pawan Garg, The Ito, House No. 766, Sector 16, Vs Ward 5(5), Panchkula. Chandigarh. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Abmpg4243N अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ajay Jain, Ca Revenue By : Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. Cit Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 27.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 02.02.2026

short ‘the CIT (A)’] dated 04.12.2024 passed for assessment year 2014-15. 2. Though assessee has taken seven grounds of appeal, but his grievance revolves around two issues, namely; A.Y.2014-15 2 a) Ld. ld.CIT (Appeals) has erred in confirming the re- opening of assessment by issuance of a notice u/s 148 dated 30.06.2021. b) Ld. CIT (Appeals) has erred

SH. BALJINDER KUMAR AGGARWAL 171, MODEL TOWN LUDHIANA,PUNJAB vs. JATIN ABBI THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1 LUDHIANA, PUNJAB

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 689/Chd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 बनाम Shri Baljinder Kumar Aggarwal, The Acit, 171, Model Town, Circle-1, Vs Ludhiana. Ludhiana. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan /Tan No: Bmcpk7473A 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 तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21.08.2025 उदघोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 17.09.2025

short ‘the CIT (A)’] dated 25.04.2024 passed for assessment year 2012-13. 2. The assessee has taken six grounds of appeal alongwith sub-grounds (a) (b) (c) and (d) under Ground No.1. However, ITA 689/CHD/2024 A.Y. 2012-13 2 perusal of these grounds would reveal that grievance of the assessee revolves around two-fold, namely

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

Short Term Capital Gain" for Rs.1,77,41,400/- 7. That the Ld. C.1.T.(A), NFAC, Delhi has failed to appreciate that the L.d. AO erred in law & facts in passing order u/s 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

ANAND SAWROOP,HIMACHAL PRADESH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , NAHAN

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

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

short term capital gains of Rs. 1,25,81,068/- was determined by the AO on sale of land by the assessee to M/s Himachal Pradesh Power Cooperation Ltd. (HPPCL) under Section 50C of the Act, which, on appeal, has been confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A). 4. Against the said findings and the order

ROSHA ALLOYS P LIMITED, AMLOH ROAD, VILLAGE TURAN, MANDI GOBINDGARH,PUNJAB vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, LUDHIANA, PUNJAB

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

short term capital gains. An Assessing Officer\nfunctioning under the statute cannot employ jugglery of words in\nnotices of the kind and let the assessee keep guessing why is his\nassessment being re-opened. The order clearly sets out that the\nAssessees have already disclosed the said transactions in the Return,\nthough arguably they could have been taxed differently

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

short term capital gains. An Assessing Officer\nfunctioning under the statute cannot employ jugglery of words in\nnotices of the kind and let the assessee keep guessing why is his\nassessment being re-opened. The order clearly sets out that the\nAssessees have already disclosed the said transactions in the Return,\n18\nthough arguably they could have been taxed differently

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

short term capital gains. An Assessing Officer\nfunctioning under the statute cannot employ jugglery of words in\nnotices of the kind and let the assessee keep guessing why is his\nassessment being re-opened. The order clearly sets out that the\nAssessees have already disclosed the said transactions in the Return,\n18\nthough arguably they could have been taxed differently