DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. JASWANT KAUR, MOHALI

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

1) of section 115 BBE to provide that wherein in the return of income furnished by the assessee, the total income of an assessee includes an income referred to in sections 68, 69, 69A, 69B and 69 C or section 69D, or otherwise added or determined by the Assessing officer during the assessment proceedings under the above

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. MANJIT KAUR, CHANDIGARH

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

1) of section 115 BBE to provide that wherein in the return of income furnished by the assessee, the total income of an assessee includes an income referred to in sections 68, 69, 69A, 69B and 69 C or section 69D, or otherwise added or determined by the Assessing officer during the assessment proceedings under the above

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. KULWANT SINGH, MOHALI

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

1) of section 115 BBE to provide that wherein in the return of income furnished by the assessee, the total income of an assessee includes an income referred to in sections 68, 69, 69A, 69B and 69 C or section 69D, or otherwise added or determined by the Assessing officer during the assessment proceedings under the above

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. KULWANT SINGH, MOHALI

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

1) of section 115 BBE to provide that wherein in the return of income furnished by the assessee, the total income of an assessee includes an income referred to in sections 68, 69, 69A, 69B and 69 C or section 69D, or otherwise added or determined by the Assessing officer during the assessment proceedings under the above

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. PARAMJIT SINGH, MOHALI

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

1) of section 115 BBE to provide that wherein in the return of income furnished by the assessee, the total income of an assessee includes an income referred to in sections 68, 69, 69A, 69B and 69 C or section 69D, or otherwise added or determined by the Assessing officer during the assessment proceedings under the above

SH. SOHAN LAL,PINJORE vs. ITO, WARD -3, PANCHKULA

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

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

68, Shiv Shakti Colony, Pinjore- Panchkula 134102 "ायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AAGPL4435J अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ"/Respondent िनधा"रती की ओर से/Assessee by : Smt. Neelam Dhiman, C.A राज" की ओर से/ Revenue by : Shri Vivek Vardhan, JCIT, Sr. DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 26/08/2024 उदघोषणा की तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 28/08/2024 आदेश/Order PER VIKRAM SINGH YADAV

NIRMALA RANI L/H OF SH. AZAD SINGH,PINJORE vs. ITO, WARD -1, , PANCHKULA

In the result, Ground No. 2 of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Appeal Is Finally Heard & Disposed Of.

68, Panchkula Shiv Shakti Colony, Pinjore-134102 "ायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AJBPS8427P अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ"/Respondent Assessee by : Smt. Neelam Dhiman, CA Revenue by : Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 09/10/2024 Date of Pronouncement : 26/11/2024 Order PER VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, A.M. : This is an appeal filed by the Assessee against the order

SH. MARTIN EKKA S/O SH. LALSAY EKKA,PANCHKULA vs. ITO, WARD -1, PANCHKULA

In the result, the ground no

Bench: SH. SANJAY GARG (Judicial Member)

68, Shiv Shakti Colony, Pinjore. "थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AAEPE4364R अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee by : Smt. Neelam Dhiman, C.A. राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue by : Shri Dharamvir, JCIT, Sr.DR सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 26.03.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement : 27.03.2024 आदेश/ORDER The present appeal has been

M/S PAGRO FROZEN FOODS PVT. LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO, W-2(3), CHANDIGARH

The appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

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

section 143(3) of the Act in the case of this assessee for the period relevant to A. Yr. 2016-17 was completed on 15.12.2018 by readjusting the depreciation allowable as done in the assessment year under consideration. The assessee has accepted the said assessment order and no appeal have been filed by the assessee against the said disallowance

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)

10(36) amounting to Rs. 99,16,874/-. The return of income was thereafter processed under section 143(1) and thereafter, no notice under section 143(2) was issued within the statutory time period. 3.1 Subsequently, search and seizure operation under section 132(1) were carried out at the residential and business premises of M/s Jain Amar

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)

10(38) amounting to Rs. 87,04,733/-. The return of income was thereafter processed under section 143(1) and thereafter, no notice under section 143(2) was issued within the statutory time period. 4.1 Subsequently, search and seizure operation under section 132(1) were carried out at the residential and business premises of M/s Jain Amar

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)

10(38) amounting to Rs. 87,04,733/-. The return of income was thereafter processed under section 143(1) and thereafter, no notice under section 143(2) was issued within the statutory time period. 4.1 Subsequently, search and seizure operation under section 132(1) were carried out at the residential and business premises of M/s Jain Amar

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)

10(38) amounting to Rs. 87,04,733/-. The return of income was thereafter processed under section 143(1) and thereafter, no notice under section 143(2) was issued within the statutory time period. 4.1 Subsequently, search and seizure operation under section 132(1) were carried out at the residential and business premises of M/s Jain Amar

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)

10(38) amounting to Rs. 87,04,733/-. The return of income was thereafter processed under section 143(1) and thereafter, no notice under section 143(2) was issued within the statutory time period. 4.1 Subsequently, search and seizure operation under section 132(1) were carried out at the residential and business premises of M/s Jain Amar

M/S CHANDIGARH LAWN TENNIS ASSOCIATION,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO (EXEMPTIONS), CHANDIGARH

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptaassessment Year : 2013-14 Chandigarh Lawn Tennis Vs. The Ito (Exemptions), Association, Ward, Chandigarh Sector 10, Chandigarh Pan No. Aaatc4943J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sh. Y.K. Sud, Ca Respondent By : Smt. Chanderkanta, Addl. Cit (On 22.3.2018) & Sh.Yoginder Mittal, Sr. Dr (On 13.7.2018) Date Of Hearing : 22.03.2018 & 13.7.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.07.2018

section 2(15) there is a paradigm shift from the earlier position. Though, some of the decisions of the Delhi High Court as referred to above and that of the Pb. & Hry. High Court in the case of The Tribune Trust (supra) have been delivered subsequent to the introduction of the second proviso to section

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)

10%f order). 1. Entry of Rs.50,00,000.00 in capital account neither covered u/s 69 nor u/s 68 1.1 Entry of Rs.50,00,000.00 was duly credited on 10/04/2018 prior to survey u/s 133 A on 16/04/2018. By invoking of section

SHRI GURU RAM DASS EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,MOHALI vs. PR.CIT(CENTRAL) GURGAON, AT CHANDIGARH

68 taxmann.com 270 (Cal) • Principal CIT, Pune Vs. Sungard Solutions (I) (P.) Ltd. [2019] 105 taxmann.com 67 (Bom) 5.26 The Ld. Pr. CIT observed that Ld. CIT(E) does not exercise any jurisdiction in respect of the person claiming exemption under section 11 and 12 of the Act which have been assigned to the A.O. subordinate

CHANDIGARH EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,MOHALI vs. PR.CIT(CENTRAL)-GURGAON, AT CHANDIGARH

68 taxmann.com 270 (Cal) • Principal CIT, Pune Vs. Sungard Solutions (I) (P.) Ltd. [2019] 105 taxmann.com 67 (Bom) 5.26 The Ld. Pr. CIT observed that Ld. CIT(E) does not exercise any jurisdiction in respect of the person claiming exemption under section 11 and 12 of the Act which have been assigned to the A.O. subordinate