DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. KULWANT SINGH, MOHALI

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

68, Chandigarh Mohali "थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AEKPS5692A Appeal against the order of CIT(A)-3, Gurgaon dated 28.10.2016 "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee by : Sh. Pankaj Bhalla, CAs राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue by : Smt. Chanderkanta, Sr.DR सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 15.02.2019 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement : 20.03.2019 आदेश/Order

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. JASWANT KAUR, MOHALI

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

68, Chandigarh Mohali "थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AEKPS5692A Appeal against the order of CIT(A)-3, Gurgaon dated 28.10.2016 "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee by : Sh. Pankaj Bhalla, CAs राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue by : Smt. Chanderkanta, Sr.DR सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 15.02.2019 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement : 20.03.2019 आदेश/Order

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. KULWANT SINGH, MOHALI

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

68, Chandigarh Mohali "थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AEKPS5692A Appeal against the order of CIT(A)-3, Gurgaon dated 28.10.2016 "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee by : Sh. Pankaj Bhalla, CAs राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue by : Smt. Chanderkanta, Sr.DR सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 15.02.2019 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement : 20.03.2019 आदेश/Order

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. MANJIT KAUR, CHANDIGARH

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

68, Chandigarh Mohali "थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AEKPS5692A Appeal against the order of CIT(A)-3, Gurgaon dated 28.10.2016 "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee by : Sh. Pankaj Bhalla, CAs राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue by : Smt. Chanderkanta, Sr.DR सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 15.02.2019 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement : 20.03.2019 आदेश/Order

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. PARAMJIT SINGH, MOHALI

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

68, Chandigarh Mohali "थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AEKPS5692A Appeal against the order of CIT(A)-3, Gurgaon dated 28.10.2016 "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee by : Sh. Pankaj Bhalla, CAs राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue by : Smt. Chanderkanta, Sr.DR सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 15.02.2019 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement : 20.03.2019 आदेश/Order

SH.RAJINDER MITTAL,PANCHKULA vs. ACIT, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is therefore allowed in above terms

68 did not apply to assessee, along with supporting documentary evidence, but Ld. CIT (A) ignored it. So, this addition is highly unjustified. Therefore, the addition of Rs.5,00,000/- is prayed to be deleted. 5. Charging interest under section 234

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

ACIT, CC-2, CHANDIGARH vs. M/S TJR PROPERTIES PVT. LTD., CHANDIGARH

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

68 of the Act in one Assessment proceedings and be genuine and credible in the other Assessment proceedings for the same year. This clearly shows that the Learned Assessing officer was not using his wits, common sense and there was no application of mind by ITA 3 &144/CHD/2023 A.Y. 2014-15 25 him whatsoever. Further, the following documents, as also

M/S TJR PROPERTIES PVT. LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. ACIT, CC-2, CHANDIGARH

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

68 of the Act in one Assessment proceedings and be genuine and credible in the other Assessment proceedings for the same year. This clearly shows that the Learned Assessing officer was not using his wits, common sense and there was no application of mind by ITA 3 &144/CHD/2023 A.Y. 2014-15 25 him whatsoever. Further, the following documents, as also

KATIANI EDUCATION SOCIETY,KULLU vs. DCIT, MANDI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Gupta

234-A, B and C of the Act which is not chargeable in the face of the case. 8. That the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is erroneous, arbitrary, opposed to law and facts of the case and is, thus untenable. 4. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee has invited our attention to the grounds of appeal. The assessee

KATIANI EDUCATION SOCIETY,KULLU vs. DCIT, MANDI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Gupta

234-A, B and C of the Act which is not chargeable in the face of the case. 8. That the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is erroneous, arbitrary, opposed to law and facts of the case and is, thus untenable. 4. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee has invited our attention to the grounds of appeal. The assessee

M/S AUSTEES HYDRO POWER & CONSTRUCTION COMPANY (P) LTD.,BILASPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BILASPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptam/S Austees Hydro Power & Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Construction Company (P) Ltd., Bilaspur Distt. Bilaspur Vpo Bahot Kasol, Tehsil Sadar, (Hp). Distt Bilaspur (Hp), Through Its Authorised Signatory Pan: Aafca8697M & The Income Tax Officer, Vs. M/S Austees Hydro Power & Bilaspur Distt. Bilaspur Construction Company (P) Ltd., (Hp). Vpo Bahot Kasol, Tehsil Sadar, Distt Bilaspur (Hp), Through Its Authorised Signatory Pan: Aafca8697M (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 244-A and 234-B. 234- 1) of the IT Act, without appreciating the circumstances and fact of the case and not giving any reason on what grounds the interest has been charged / imposed. On this ground also the appeal deserves to be allowed. I That the orders of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Shimla

INCOME TAX OFFICER, BILASPUR vs. M/S AUSTEE HYDRO POWER & CONSTRUCTION COMPANY (P) LTD., BILASPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptam/S Austees Hydro Power & Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Construction Company (P) Ltd., Bilaspur Distt. Bilaspur Vpo Bahot Kasol, Tehsil Sadar, (Hp). Distt Bilaspur (Hp), Through Its Authorised Signatory Pan: Aafca8697M & The Income Tax Officer, Vs. M/S Austees Hydro Power & Bilaspur Distt. Bilaspur Construction Company (P) Ltd., (Hp). Vpo Bahot Kasol, Tehsil Sadar, Distt Bilaspur (Hp), Through Its Authorised Signatory Pan: Aafca8697M (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 244-A and 234-B. 234- 1) of the IT Act, without appreciating the circumstances and fact of the case and not giving any reason on what grounds the interest has been charged / imposed. On this ground also the appeal deserves to be allowed. I That the orders of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Shimla

DCIT, CC-II, CHANDIGARH vs. M/S CHANDIGARH DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is

Bench: Ms.Diva Singh & Ms. Annapurna Guptathe D.C.I.T., Vs. M/S Chandigarh Developers Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-Ii, Sco 49-50, Sector 26, Chandigarh. Chandigarh. Pan: Aadcc6359G (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 132 of the Act, was carried out at the premises of the assessee on 04.10.2012. In the assessment framed 2 A.Y. 2010-11 thereafter ,pursuant to the search carried out at the assessee’s premises, addition u/s 68 of the Act was made of Rs.1 crore, received as share application money from M/s RSM Metals

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, LUDHIANA , LUDHIANA vs. LALIT KUMAR PROP. LALIT CO., MIS BABU RAM HEM RAJ, FARIDKOT

Appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.682/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.683/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 3. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.684/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Dcit Central Circle-1 Shri Lalit Kumar Sco 1-6, 2Nd Floor, Opp. Bvm School बनाम/ (Prop. Lalit Co. & M/S Babu Ram Hem Raj) New Grain Market Kitchlu Nagar Vs. Faridkot - 151203 Ludhiana-141001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Adapk-3617-L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & 4. Co. No.25/Chandi/2024 (In Ita No. 682/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 5. Co. No.26/Chandi/2024 (In Ita No. 683/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 6. Co. No.27/Chandi/2024 (In Ita No. 684/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17)

section 68 of the Act.? 3. Whether upon the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in applying GP rate of 6% and hereby allowing benefit of unverifiable purchases and in contradiction to the decision Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the case of SVS Oil Mills vs ACIT

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, LUDHIANA , LUDHIANA vs. LALIT KUMAR, PROP. LALIT CO., MS BABU RAM HEM RAJ, FARIDKOT

Appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.682/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.683/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 3. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.684/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Dcit Central Circle-1 Shri Lalit Kumar Sco 1-6, 2Nd Floor, Opp. Bvm School बनाम/ (Prop. Lalit Co. & M/S Babu Ram Hem Raj) New Grain Market Kitchlu Nagar Vs. Faridkot - 151203 Ludhiana-141001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Adapk-3617-L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & 4. Co. No.25/Chandi/2024 (In Ita No. 682/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 5. Co. No.26/Chandi/2024 (In Ita No. 683/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 6. Co. No.27/Chandi/2024 (In Ita No. 684/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17)

section 68 of the Act.? 3. Whether upon the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in applying GP rate of 6% and hereby allowing benefit of unverifiable purchases and in contradiction to the decision Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the case of SVS Oil Mills vs ACIT

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

234 (SC). The assessee Trust in that case was carrying out the activity of printing and publishing of newspaper and magazines. The assessee claimed that the object of the assessee- trust was education, while the stand of the revenue was that the activity of the assessee would fall in the last mentioned category in section

DCIT, C-4, LUDHIANA vs. M/S AARTI STEELS LIMITED, LUDHIANA

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1619/Chd/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2008-09 The Dcit, Circle-4, बनाम M/S Aarti Steels Ltd., Ludhiana G.T. Raod, Miller Ganj, Ludhiana. "थायीलेखासं./Pan No:Aabca4455D अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

section 115JAA of the Act at Rs.4,62,96,497/- which again did not include surcharge and cess. The net tax liability was thus arrived at Rs. 8,48,03,029/- (Rs. 13,11,08,526 – Rs.4,62,95,497/-). On the same surcharge @ 10% and education cess @ 3% was added and also interest u/s 234 C was levied