INCOME TAX OFFICER, PARWANOO vs. DEEPAK KUMAR, NAHAN

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

68 of the Act. In this regard, reference was drawn to the assessment order so passed under section 144

BANUR BROTHER ,PATIALA vs. ITO-WARD-1, AMBALA

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed as and by way of remand to Ld

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

Section 144 of the Act making an addition of Rs. 3,68,63,786/- under Section 69A/69C of the Act. 5. In the Ld. AO order

M/S GOLD STAR AMCO STEELS PVT. LTD.,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, C-1, LUDHIANA

In the results, the book results as duly audited need to be accepted and the addition so made is hereby directed to be deleted

Bench: 30Th Of September 2013 And, As Such, Framing Of Assessment By The Assessing Officer Without Observing Mandatory

144 dt. 09/03/2015 wherein the assessed income was determined at Rs. 3,54,58,572/- as against the returned loss of Rs. 2,46,67,816/-. 6. While passing the assessment order, the AO made an addition of Rs. 32,50,000/- under Section 68

DCIT, C-1, LUDHIANA vs. M/S GOLD STAR AMCO STEELS PVT. LTD., LUDHIANA

In the results, the book results as duly audited need to be accepted and the addition so made is hereby directed to be deleted

Bench: 30Th Of September 2013 And, As Such, Framing Of Assessment By The Assessing Officer Without Observing Mandatory

144 dt. 09/03/2015 wherein the assessed income was determined at Rs. 3,54,58,572/- as against the returned loss of Rs. 2,46,67,816/-. 6. While passing the assessment order, the AO made an addition of Rs. 32,50,000/- under Section 68

M/S ARYANS EDUCATIONAL AND CHARITABLE TRUST,MOHALI vs. DCIT, C-1, (E), CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Dr Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 821/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 M/S Aryans Educational & Vs. The Dcit, Circle-1 Charitable Trust, बनाम (Exemptions), # 2129, Phase-10, Chandigarh Mohali "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aabta7550L

68 of the Act treating corpus donations received from students to be anonymous donations. 8. We find that the not considering the evidence filed by the Assessee during the appellate proceedings before the ld. CIT(A) is not justified on the part of the ld. CIT(A). In fact, the case laws relied upon

SH. SANDEEP KUMAR,LUDHIANA vs. ITO, WARD-4, KHANNA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

144 r.w.s 147 vide order dt. 13/12/2017 wherein the AO brought to tax an amount of Rs. 8,39,191/- as income of the assessee from undisclosed sources under Section 68

ITO, W-1(3), CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. RENU ANAND, CHANDIGARH

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

section 143(2) was issued on 02/09/2014 by the Dy. CIT Circle1(1) Chandigarh 2 and served upon the assessee on 08/09/2014. Thereafter the case record was transferred to ITO Ward1(3) which was received on 26/05/2015. That further proceedings were taken up by issuing notice u/s 142(1) alongwith questionnaire on 11/06/2015 followed by on 30/07/2015. That

SAWASTIKA PRINTING & PACKAGING,KALA MAB vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, NAHAN

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: the Hon'ble CIT(A)(NFAC) that assessee is having business turnover of Rs 16,77,30,943/-. While upholding the additions of Rs 20,81,000/- the Hon'ble CIT(A) (NFAC) has observed in last para of his order as under:-

144 could not be held to be invalid. Accordingly, the grounds challenging jurisdiction and legality of assessment were dismissed. 4.1 On merits of the addition under section 68

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, LUDHIANA vs. RITU DHINGRA, SHAKTI VIHAR, HAIBOWAL KALAN, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee and cross appeal of the Department are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: him:- (a) That the assessment order dated 31.03.2023 passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s.153C is bad in law in as much no incriminating material was found suggesting any escapement of income at premises of Sh. Avtar Singh Kochhar. (b) That the assessment order passed is non-est and bad in law in as much the proceedings have not been conducted in the manner prescribed by the Department instructions from time to time which are mandatory for compliance by the Learned Authorities particularly with respect

68 of the Act and dismissed the grounds raised by the assessee. 8. Against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee preferred in appeal before the Tribunal. 9. During the course of hearing the Ld. AR invited our attention to the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer, wherein the assessment was framed under section 153C read

RITU DHINGRA, LUDHIANA,LUDHIANA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee and cross appeal of the Department are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: him:-

68 of the Act and dismissed the grounds raised by the assessee. 8. Against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee preferred in appeal before the Tribunal. 9. During the course of hearing the Ld. AR invited our attention to the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer, wherein the assessment was framed under section 153C read

SURESH,PINJORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4,, PANCHKULA

In the result both the above appeals are allowed

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

144, treating the cash deposits as unexplained credits under Section 68 and added Rs. 10,04,000/- to the assessee

SURESH,PINJORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4, PANCHKULA

In the result both the above appeals are allowed

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

144, treating the cash deposits as unexplained credits under Section 68 and added Rs. 10,04,000/- to the assessee

RACHIT AGGARWAL (PROP.) ASHOK KUMAR GUPTA & CO.,LUDHIANA vs. ITO, WARD II(2), LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without providing reasonable and adequate opportunity of hearing; 2. making an addition of Rs. 87,95,000/- being the amount of cash deposited in bank out of business receipts invoking section 68

PUNJAB BEVERAGES PVT. LTD.,PATIALA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE, PATIALA

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Smt.Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.438/Chd/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2001-02

144 of the Act and an appeal lies under section 246(c) against such an order." E. Direct Precedents on the issue - It is submitted that issue in dispute is answered in detail by two direct decisions of Hon'ble High Courts. There cannot be two assessment orders for assessing the same income in the same assessment year

DCIT, CIRCLE, PATIALA vs. M/S PUNJAB BEVERAGES PVT. LTD., PATIALA

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Smt.Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.438/Chd/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2001-02

144 of the Act and an appeal lies under section 246(c) against such an order." E. Direct Precedents on the issue - It is submitted that issue in dispute is answered in detail by two direct decisions of Hon'ble High Courts. There cannot be two assessment orders for assessing the same income in the same assessment year

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, LUDHIANA vs. MALBROS INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD, FARIDKOT

In the result, both the appeals and the Cross Objections\nare dismissed

68 solely on basis of information received from\nInvestigation Wing that lenders from whom assessee-company acquired loans were\nindulged in bogus accommodation entries, since assessee was not granted an\nopportunity to cross-examine persons whose statements were recorded during\ninvestigation, impugned addition made on basis of such investigation which was\nnot privy to assessee were to be deleted

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, LUDHIANA vs. MALBROS INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD, FARIDKOT

In the result, both the appeals and the Cross Objections are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 992 & 993/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2017-18, 2016-17 The Dcit, Vs Malbros International Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-2, Village – Mansoorwal, Teh-Zira, Ludhiana. Head Offices Old Cantt. Road, Faridkot. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aadcm7203R अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & C.O. Nos. 46 & 45/Chd/2024 In आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 992 & 993/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18, 2016-17 Malbros International Pvt. Ltd., The Dcit, Village – Mansoorwal, Teh-Zira, Vs Central Circle-2, Head Offices Old Cantt. Road, Ludhiana. Faridkot. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aadcm7203R अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate Revenue By : Smt. Kusum Bansal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 14.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.06.2025

68 solely on basis of information received from Investigation Wing that lenders from whom assessee-company acquired loans were indulged in bogus accommodation entries, since assessee was not granted an opportunity to cross-examine persons whose statements were recorded during investigation, impugned addition made on basis of such investigation which was not privy to assessee were to be deleted

SMT. JAGDEEP KAUR,LUDHIANA vs. ITO, WARD 6(4), LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

Bench: This Hon’Ble Tribunal Under Section 253 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. The Assessee Is Aggrieved By Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022- 23/1048105767(1) Dt. 20/12/2022 Which Was Passed By The Ld. Cit(A) Nfac, Delhi Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Said First Appeal Was Dismissed By The Ld. Cit(A). Therefore Assessee Is Before Us. The Said Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Is Hereinafter Referred To As The “Impugned Order”. 4. In Form No. 36 The Assessee Interalia Has Take Up Following Grounds Of Appeal Against The Impugned Order Which Are Reproduced Below:

68 Rs. 7,35,000/- Assessed Income Rs. 7,35,000/- Assessed u/s 147 r.w.s 144 of the IT Act, 1961. Charge Interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C of the IT Act, 1961 accordingly. 15. The copy of order of AO passed under section

MITHU RAM,DIRBA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, SUNAM

In the result, ground no. 4 & 5 are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Cit(A) Proves This Fact. 2. That The Assessee Was Prevented By Sufficient & Reasonable Cause In Not Attending To The Proceedings Before The Cit(A) Due Oversight/ Skip Of Mail Regarding The Date Of Hearing Because Busy In Filling The Income Tax Returns.

144 and confirming the order of Assessing Officer in part, thereby, sustaining the addition of Rs. 25,60,798/ raised in Ground no. 3, Rs. 7,70,000/ raised in ground no. 4 and Rs. 10,48,000/ raised in ground no, 5 of the appeal. The statement of facts before CIT(A) proves this fact. 2. That the assessee