DCIT,CIRCLE-1(EXEMPTION), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S MANAV MANGAL SCHOOL( MANAV MANGAL SOCIETY), CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the department are dismissed

section 13(1)(c) is to judge the reasonableness of the payments made to the members of the society and secondly and more importantly, there is no finding of the AO that the society is not working towards the objects of education etc. as defined in its Memorandum and Rules and Regulations. No case of siphoning

DCIT, C-1, (E), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S MANAV MANGAL SOCIETY, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the department are dismissed

section 13(1)(c) is to judge the reasonableness of the payments made to the members of the society and secondly and more importantly, there is no finding of the AO that the society is not working towards the objects of education etc. as defined in its Memorandum and Rules and Regulations. No case of siphoning

DCIT, C-1, (E), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S MANAV MANGAL SOCIETY, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the department are dismissed

section 13(1)(c) is to judge the reasonableness of the payments made to the members of the society and secondly and more importantly, there is no finding of the AO that the society is not working towards the objects of education etc. as defined in its Memorandum and Rules and Regulations. No case of siphoning

M/S MANAV MANGAL SOCIETY,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, C-1, (E), CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the department are dismissed

section 13(1)(c) is to judge the reasonableness of the payments made to the members of the society and secondly and more importantly, there is no finding of the AO that the society is not working towards the objects of education etc. as defined in its Memorandum and Rules and Regulations. No case of siphoning

DCIT, C-1, (E), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S MANAV MANGAL SOCIETY, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the department are dismissed

section 13(1)(c) is to judge the reasonableness of the payments made to the members of the society and secondly and more importantly, there is no finding of the AO that the society is not working towards the objects of education etc. as defined in its Memorandum and Rules and Regulations. No case of siphoning

M/S MANAV MANGAL SOCIETY,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, C-1, (E), CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the department are dismissed

section 13(1)(c) is to judge the reasonableness of the payments made to the members of the society and secondly and more importantly, there is no finding of the AO that the society is not working towards the objects of education etc. as defined in its Memorandum and Rules and Regulations. No case of siphoning

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

68 of the order.\n4\n3.1\nThe grounds of appeal as taken by the Department are\nreproduced as under bearing ITA No. 921/Chd/2024:\n1.\nWhether upon facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT\n(A) was justified to restricted the addition made by the A.O on account of\nsuppression of sales of Rs.11

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

68 of the order.\n4\n3.1 The grounds of appeal as taken by the Department are\nreproduced as under bearing ITA No. 921/Chd/2024:\n1. Whether upon facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT\n(A) was justified to restricted the addition made by the A.O on account of\nsuppression of sales of Rs.11

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

68 of the order.\n3.1 The grounds of appeal as taken by the Department are\nreproduced as under bearing ITA No. 921/Chd/2024:\n1.\nWhether upon facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT\n(A) was justified to restricted the addition made by the A.O on account of\nsuppression of sales of Rs.11

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

68 of the order.\n\n4\n3.1\nThe grounds of appeal as taken by the Department are\nreproduced as under bearing ITA No. 921/Chd/2024:\n1.\nWhether upon facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT\n(A) was justified to restricted the addition made by the A.O on account of\nsuppression of sales of Rs.11

SJVN LIMITED,SHIMLA HIMACHAL PRADESH vs. ACIT , SHIMLA

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

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

Section 154 dt. 10/10/2022 requesting for rectification of demand by contending that as per the computation attached, demand of Rs. 275,30,33,942/- was erroneously determined and the following mistakes were pointed out by the assessee: 1. “In the computation of income, deemed income u/s 115JB has been taken wrongly at Rs. 21,06,42,20,687/- instead

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHANDIGARH vs. JAMES HOTELS LTD, CHANDIGARH

Bench: The Said Resolution To Enhance Authorized Share Capital.

221 (iv) CIT vs Speedways Rubbers Pvt Ltd 326 ITR 31 (P&H) The contention of the assessee further substantiated from the facts that the assessee Co. during the relevant year increased its Authorized Capital by Rs. 38.00 crore to became authorized for issue the shores of Rs. 37.50 crore from the Share Application Money. Thus the presumption that

INDERJIT SINGH BRAR,PATIALA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, PATIALA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav

1 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. KERALA TRANSPORT CO. itat, cochin bench source (1994) 51 ITD 405 : (1994) 50 TTJ (Coch) 189. 2 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. K.M.N. NAIDU HIGH COURT OF MADRAS Source (1996) 221 ITR 451 (Mad) : (1996) 136 CTR (Mad) 341. 3 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. PRAHALAD RAI RATHI ITAT, JODHPUR BENCH ITANo

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

68. For the sake of completeness, we present the background and basis for this deduction or appropriation from Reserves and Surplus: 5. The Ld. AR had submitted that the Assessing Officer in the original assessment had recorded the scrutiny heads as advances from customers, ICDS compliance & adjustments, verification of opening/closing stock and bonus/commission, and ultimately made only one addition

M/S DIN DAYAL PURSOTAM LAL,SIRSA vs. PR.CIT, ROHTAK

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

221 Taxman 436 (Guj) CIT vs. Pradeep Shantilal Patel (section 44AF) iv) ITA No. 116/Ahd/2011 dated 30.5.2014 Narpat Singh vs. 1TO v) 355 ITR 290 (Guj) CIT vs. Bholanath Poly Fab (P) Ltd. vi) 152 ITD 874 (Ahd) Dineshbhai Dhansukhlal Mithaiwala vs. ITO vii) ITA No. 2446 & 2447/Mum/2015 DCIT v. Allied Blende.s and Distillers (P) Ltd. viii

M/S DIN DAYAL PURSOTAM LAL,SIRSA vs. PR.CIT, ROHTAK

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

221 Taxman 436 (Guj) CIT vs. Pradeep Shantilal Patel (section 44AF) iv) ITA No. 116/Ahd/2011 dated 30.5.2014 Narpat Singh vs. 1TO v) 355 ITR 290 (Guj) CIT vs. Bholanath Poly Fab (P) Ltd. vi) 152 ITD 874 (Ahd) Dineshbhai Dhansukhlal Mithaiwala vs. ITO vii) ITA No. 2446 & 2447/Mum/2015 DCIT v. Allied Blende.s and Distillers (P) Ltd. viii

M/S DIN DAYAL PURSOTAM LAL,SIRSA vs. PR.CIT, ROHTAK

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

221 Taxman 436 (Guj) CIT vs. Pradeep Shantilal Patel (section 44AF) iv) ITA No. 116/Ahd/2011 dated 30.5.2014 Narpat Singh vs. 1TO v) 355 ITR 290 (Guj) CIT vs. Bholanath Poly Fab (P) Ltd. vi) 152 ITD 874 (Ahd) Dineshbhai Dhansukhlal Mithaiwala vs. ITO vii) ITA No. 2446 & 2447/Mum/2015 DCIT v. Allied Blende.s and Distillers (P) Ltd. viii

SANJAY SINGAL (HUF),NEW DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH , CHANDIGARH

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

221 /Chd/ 2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2016-17 Sanjay Singal (HUF) बनाम The DCIT 53, Jor Bagh, New Delhi Central Circle-1 Chandigarh "ायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AAMHS8301N अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ"/Respondent िनधा"रती की ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Ashwani Kumar, C.A and Ms. Deepali Aggarwal, C.A राज" की ओर से/ Revenue by : Smt. Kusum Bansal