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:-

144B is without jurisdiction and deserves to be cancelled. 5. Permission to modify or alter any grounds of appeal at the time of hearing. 3. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the assessee engaged in the business of manufacturing corrugated boxes and gas cylinders and filed its return of income for the Assessment Year 2017-18 under section

SHIV SHAKTI OIL MILLS,KAITHAL vs. ITO, WARD-1,, KAITHAL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Appeal Is Finally Heard & Disposed Off.

144B of the Act vide order dated 31.03.2022, wherein an addition of Rs.9,96,000/- was made under section 68

SHIV SHAKTI OIL MILLS,KAITHAL, HARYANA vs. ITO, WARD-1, KAITHAL, HARYANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Appeal Is Finally Heard & Disposed Off.

144B of the Act vide order dated 31.03.2022, wherein an addition of Rs.9,96,000/- was made under section 68

SHIV SHAKTI OIL MILLS,KAITHAL, HARYANA vs. ITO, WARD-1,, KAITHAL, HARYANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Appeal Is Finally Heard & Disposed Off.

144B of the Act vide order dated 31.03.2022, wherein an addition of Rs.9,96,000/- was made under section 68

ITO, WARD 2(1), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S LONGIA ENGINEERS, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

144B of the Act; that the appeal of the assessee was allowed, as the assessment in the case was completed in consequence of order dated 23.03.2021 passed u/s 263 of the Act and the same was set aside by the ITAT, Chandigarh, vide order dated 06.12.2021, passed in ITA No. 30/CHD/2021; that the ITO was engaged in drafting of appeal

AUTHORGEN TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNJAB vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHANDIGARH-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Krinwant Sahay & Shri Paresh M. Joshiआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 541/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Authrogen Technologies Vs. The Pcit, बनाम Chandigarh-1, Private Limited, Chandigarh C-203, 8Th Floor, World Tech Power, Industrial Area, Phase Viii, Mohali "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aadca0494Q अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent (Physical Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri K M Gupta, Advocate & Shri Jaskaran Singh, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Rohit Sharma, Cit Dr

144B of the Act, dated 28.03.2022 in which the subject matter of present revision was not under consideration. Incorrect assumption of jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act without satisfying the twin conditions of the order being erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. 3. That the learned PCIT has erred in law and on facts

GEETA SHARMA,SUNAM vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , PATIALA

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

144B of the Income Tax Act. 15.5 The assessee vide their reply dated 14.02.2024 duly offered her explanation to the Show Cause Notice dated 05.02.2024 and highlighted the following: a) That the order of ld. AO is not erroneous b) That the computation sheet of the AO’s order clearly reflects the correct figures and all the figures

A.B. SUGARS LIMITED,PUNJAB vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

144B may not be cancelled and the AO may not be directed to make fresh assessment. 6. In response to the show cause, the assessee vide its submission dt. 05/01/2024 submitted as under: “This has reference to your notice dated 29.12.2023 having DIN No. ITBA/REV/F/REV1/2023-24/1059207059(1) on the captioned subject. In this regard we submit that our power unit

A.B. SUGARS LIMITED,PUNJAB vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1, CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

144B may not be cancelled and the AO may not be directed to make fresh assessment. 6. In response to the show cause, the assessee vide its submission dt. 05/01/2024 submitted as under: “This has reference to your notice dated 29.12.2023 having DIN No. ITBA/REV/F/REV1/2023-24/1059207059(1) on the captioned subject. In this regard we submit that our power unit

AMAN THUKRAL,LUDHIANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(1), LUDHIANA , LUDHIANA

Accordingly, Additional Ground No. 1 is allowed for statistical

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

144B and made various additions including ₹3,60,17,756 on account of alleged bogus purchases, along with other disallowances. D. The assessee submitted that all purchases were genuine and supported by documentary evidence such as GST returns (GSTR-2A), purchase invoices, bank statements, supplier confirmations, and books of account. E. It was argued that GST registrations of suppliers were

SH. BALJIT SINGH,LUDHIANA vs. PR. CIT, LUDHIANA -1, LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

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

68 with regard to unsecured loans and payment of interest thereon as a consequence thereof expenditure of Rs. 1,32,97,887/- has remained unexplained. The other issue dealt by him in para 4 & 5(supra) of the impugned order stands dealt with in fresh assessment order dt. 27/03/2023-i.e; the consequential order passed in pursuance to order under section

DEEPAK KUMAR PROP. M/S URVI ENTERPRISES MANDIGOBINDGARH,MANDI GOBINDGARH vs. THE ASSESSMENT UNIT NFAC DELHI JAO THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2 MANDI GOBINDGARH, MANDI GOBINDGARH

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

144B of the Act for the Assessment Year 2022-23. 2. Briefly stated, the assessee is an individual who filed his return of income declaring total income of Rs.4,58,400/-. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS on the basis of risk parameters indicating high liabilities vis-à-vis low income and substantial purchases from suppliers who were

JANTA LAND PROMOTERS PVT LTD,MOHALI vs. THE PRINICIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,CHANDIGARH-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

144B on 26.09.2022 for A.Y. 2020-21 was held to be erroneous in so far as prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue and was set aside for fresh verification on multiple issues on the grounds mentioned in the appeal. 2. Ld. AR submitted that the show-cause under section 263 of the Income Tax Act 1961,extracted

SBS BIOTECH UNIT II,SIRMOUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

68,78,900/- as originally declared and thereafter notice under section 143(2) and 142(1) alongwith detailed questionnaire were issued and after taking into consideration the submissions so filed by the assessee and after carrying out necessary examination/verification, the assessment proceedings were completed under section 147 r.w.s 144B

PARAMJIT SINGH,MOHALI, PUNJAB vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DELHI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपीलसं ./ Ita No. 548/Chd/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Paramjit Singh, The Ito, Village-Hansali Khera, Vs Ward 6(1), Distt. Fatehgarh, Punjab. Chandigarh. "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Dmhps4546F अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, Ca Revenue By : Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. Cit Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 04.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 05.02.2026 Physical Hearing O R D E R

68 of the Income Tax Act. 3. With the assistance of ld. Representative, we have gone through the record carefully. It emerges out that ld.CIT (Appeals) has not adjudicated the appeal on merit, rather dismissed it for want of prosecution. Sub Section (6) of Section 250 of the Income Tax Act contemplates that ld.CIT (Appeals) would state

DHARAM FOUNDATION EDUCATIONAL TRUST,FATEHGARH SAHIB vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,, SIRHIND

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

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

144B of the Act vide order dt. 28/03/2022. As per AO, the assessee trust is formed for providing education to the general public and is created for imparting quality education to the common man. Under the ambit of the trust, three institutes are run from the same premises at Sirhind District Fategarh Sahib Punjab namely Lincoln College of Law, Lincoln

SUKHDEV RAJ,SIRSA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, SIRSA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

144B at a total taxable income of Rs. 24,73,033/-, and simultaneously initiating penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 9. Against the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). After examining the assessment order as well as the written submissions filed

ITO, LUDHIANA vs. ARUN GUPTA, LUDHIANA

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Krinwant Sahay, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.112/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22) Ito Arun Gupta बनाम/ Vs. Aayakar Bhawan, Rishi Nagar 1698 – New Shakti Nagar, Ludhiana, Punjab - 141001 Ludhiana, Punjab - 141001 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Abkpg-4933-F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. B.M. Monga & Sh. Rohit Kaura (Advocates) ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Manav Bansal (Cit) Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21-01-2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 19-03-2026 : आदेश / O R D E R Krinwant Sahay () This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi, Dated 04.12.2024, Pertaining To The Assessment Year 2021-22. The Revenue Has Challenged The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) In Setting Aside The Assessment Order To The File Of The Assessing Officer For Fresh Adjudication.

68 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on account of unverified Unsecured Loans and the assessee had failed to furnish any explanation on this issue during the course of assessment proceedings. 8. That, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has failed to appreciate the fact that the disallowance of Rs. 23,04,688/- made

INCOME TAX OFFICER, PATIALA vs. GULMOHAR ASSOCIATES, PATIALA

68,169/- Estate, Patiala M/s Gulmohar Associate ICICI Bank Urban 2013-14 079005500178 Rs. 7,36,73,000/- Estate, Patiala M/s Gulmohar Associate ICICI Bank Urban 2013-14 079005500110 Rs. 2,67,40,000/- Estate, Patiala Total Rs. 19,20,81,169/- 4.2 Accordingly, the case was reopened under section 147 of the Income- tax Act, 1961 after obtaining