SH. VIBHAV JAIN,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-III, LUDHIANA

In the result, the ground no

Bench: SHRI. SANJAY GARG (Judicial Member), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

68 arbitrarily. These are actual long term capital gains earned by the assessee. h) All the documents in the shape of share certificates issued by Maple Goods Pvt. Ltd. which are part of annexure A containing 1 to 182 pages have been doubted under the words Character of Certificates, inspite of the fact that the AO has not doubted

M/S SATWANT AGRO ENGINEERS,BHAWANIGARH vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, PATIALA

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

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

reopen their individual assessment in accordance to with law but it cannot be regarded as undisclosed income of assessee company. 5) India Rice Mills Vs CIT 218 ITR 508.-Credit in partners account should not assessed in firm. So the credit entry in partners account is not taxable in firm as income and should be assessed in individual partners account

SH. ASHISH JAIN,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)

68 arbitrarily. These are actual long term capital gains earned by the assessee. h) All the documents in the shape of share certificates issued by Maple Goods Pvt. Ltd. which are part of annexure A containing 1 to 182 pages have been doubted under the words Character of Certificates, inspite of the fact that the AO has not doubted

SH. ASHISH JAIN,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)

68 arbitrarily. These are actual long term capital gains earned by the assessee. h) All the documents in the shape of share certificates issued by Maple Goods Pvt. Ltd. which are part of annexure A containing 1 to 182 pages have been doubted under the words Character of Certificates, inspite of the fact that the AO has not doubted

SH. AKHIL JAIN,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)

68 arbitrarily. These are actual long term capital gains earned by the assessee. h) All the documents in the shape of share certificates issued by Maple Goods Pvt. Ltd. which are part of annexure A containing 1 to 182 pages have been doubted under the words Character of Certificates, inspite of the fact that the AO has not doubted

SH. BIPAN JAIN,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)

68 arbitrarily. These are actual long term capital gains earned by the assessee. h) All the documents in the shape of share certificates issued by Maple Goods Pvt. Ltd. which are part of annexure A containing 1 to 182 pages have been doubted under the words Character of Certificates, inspite of the fact that the AO has not doubted

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)

68 of the Act. As against the returned income of Rs. 8,85,15,010/-, the assessed income was determined at Rs. 37,11,61,260/- 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

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. JASWANT KAUR, MOHALI

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

reopening of the assessment u/s 148 of the Act, had deposited due taxes and the resultant addition after assessment does not create any liability to pay any further tax, there will be no tax sought to be evaded. 19. Now coming to the relevant clause (c) to Explanation 4, which is residuary clause which speaks that in any other case

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. PARAMJIT SINGH, MOHALI

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

reopening of the assessment u/s 148 of the Act, had deposited due taxes and the resultant addition after assessment does not create any liability to pay any further tax, there will be no tax sought to be evaded. 19. Now coming to the relevant clause (c) to Explanation 4, which is residuary clause which speaks that in any other case

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. MANJIT KAUR, CHANDIGARH

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

reopening of the assessment u/s 148 of the Act, had deposited due taxes and the resultant addition after assessment does not create any liability to pay any further tax, there will be no tax sought to be evaded. 19. Now coming to the relevant clause (c) to Explanation 4, which is residuary clause which speaks that in any other case

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. KULWANT SINGH, MOHALI

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

reopening of the assessment u/s 148 of the Act, had deposited due taxes and the resultant addition after assessment does not create any liability to pay any further tax, there will be no tax sought to be evaded. 19. Now coming to the relevant clause (c) to Explanation 4, which is residuary clause which speaks that in any other case

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. KULWANT SINGH, MOHALI

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

reopening of the assessment u/s 148 of the Act, had deposited due taxes and the resultant addition after assessment does not create any liability to pay any further tax, there will be no tax sought to be evaded. 19. Now coming to the relevant clause (c) to Explanation 4, which is residuary clause which speaks that in any other case

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. JASWANT KAUR, MOHALI

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

reopening of the assessment u/s 148 of the Act, had deposited due taxes and the resultant addition after assessment does not create any liability to pay any further tax, there will be no tax sought to be evaded. 19. Now coming to the relevant clause (c) to Explanation 4, which is residuary clause which speaks that in any other case

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. PARAMJIT SINGH, MOHALI

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

reopening of the assessment u/s 148 of the Act, had deposited due taxes and the resultant addition after assessment does not create any liability to pay any further tax, there will be no tax sought to be evaded. 19. Now coming to the relevant clause (c) to Explanation 4, which is residuary clause which speaks that in any other case

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, LUDHIANA , LUDHIANA vs. HOMELIFE BUILDCON PVT. LTD., LUDHIANA

In the result, Revenue appeal is dismissed and appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 880/Chd/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2021-22 Homelife Buildcon Private Limited Sunview Enclave, Ayali Kalan, Ludhiana, Punjab-142027 स्थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AABCH5690M अपीलार्थी/Appellant The DCIT Central Circle-1 Ludhiana, Punjab प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 1036/Chd/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2021-22 Homelife Buildcon Private Limited Sunview Enclave, Ayali Kalan, Lu

reopened under section 147, therefore, the assessment framed under section 143(3) for Asstt. Year 2021-22 is without jurisdiction and bad in law. 11. The Ld. Counsel of the assessee by way of written submissions contended that the search was also conducted on Sh. Ajay Kumar Prabhakar, Sh. Raj Kumar Sachdeva and one Sh. Ravi Kapoor. It has been

HOMELIFE BUILDCON PRIVATE LIMITED,SUNVIEW ENCLAVE, AYALI KALAN, LUDHIANA,PUNJAB vs. SMT. SAMANDEEP KAUR DCIT-CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, LUDHIANA, PUNJAB

In the result, Revenue appeal is dismissed and appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 880/Chd/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2021-22 Homelife Buildcon Private Limited Sunview Enclave, Ayali Kalan, Ludhiana, Punjab-142027 स्थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AABCH5690M अपीलार्थी/Appellant बनाम The DCIT Central Circle-1 Ludhiana, Punjab प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 1036/Chd/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2021-22 बनाम Homelife Buildcon Private Limited Sunview Enclave, Ayali

reopened under section 147, therefore, the assessment framed under section 143(3) for Asstt. Year 2021-22 is without jurisdiction and bad in law. 11. The Ld. Counsel of the assessee by way of written submissions contended that the search was also conducted on Sh. Ajay Kumar Prabhakar, Sh. Raj Kumar Sachdeva and one Sh. Ravi Kapoor. It has been

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

reopening and the amount mentioned in the Annexure\nappended to the approval under Section 151 but also the Approving\nAuthority did not approve the basis as mentioned in the reasons recorded by\nAO. This variance indicates non-application of mind by the approving\nauthority and renders the sanction mechanical, invalid, and unsustainable in\nlaw, vitiating the entire reassessment proceedings

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

reopening and the amount mentioned in the Annexure\nappended to the approval under Section 151 but also the Approving\nAuthority did not approve the basis as mentioned in the reasons recorded by\nAO. This variance indicates non-application of mind by the approving\nauthority and renders the sanction mechanical, invalid, and unsustainable in\nlaw, vitiating the entire reassessment proceedings

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

reopening and the amount mentioned in the Annexure\nappended to the approval under Section 151 but also the Approving\nAuthority did not approve the basis as mentioned in the reasons recorded by\nAO. This variance indicates non-application of mind by the approving\nauthority and renders the sanction mechanical, invalid, and unsustainable in\nlaw, vitiating the entire reassessment proceedings