SMT. DEEPINDER KAUR JOHAL,PATIALA vs. ITO, WARD-4, PATIALA

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ANDSHRI PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

68,00,000/-to the sellers and an amount of Rs.2,60,00,000/-had been paid in F.Y.2010-11 relevant to A.Y.2011-12 and balance amount of Rs.2,08,00,000/-had been paid in the F.Y. 2011-12 relevant ITA 532/CHD/2023 A.Y. 2012-13 4 to A.Y. 2012-13. The assessee's share being 2/5th on such payment of Rs.2

SH.RANDHIR SINGH,MOHALI vs. PR.CIT-1, CHANDIGARH

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

68)] there is net tax payable of Rs.31,61,510/- including interest components and as on 06.12.2017 [note:- interest under Section 234B

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 6 (1), MOHALI vs. SKYCITY BUILDERS AND PROMOTERS PRIVATE LIMITED, KHRAR PUNJAB

In the result, the corresponding grounds as raised by the revenue stand dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1066/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/S Skycity Builders & Promoters Pvt. Ltd. Dcit Ward 6(1) बनाम/ Room No.3, 1St Floor Sco-90, City Heart Kharar-Chandigarh Road, Livestock Complex Vs. Kharar, Rupnagar (Punjab) - 140301 Sector – 68, Mohali -160062 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aapcs-2435-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 2. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1217/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Dcit Ward 6(1) M/S Skycity Builders & Promoters Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ Room No.3, 1St Floor Sco-90, City Heart Livestock Complex Kharar-Chandigarh Road, Vs. Sector – 68, Mohali -160062 Kharar, Rupnagar (Punjab) - 140301 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aapcs-2435-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Ms. Yamini (Cit) - Ld. Dr (Virtual) सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05.02.2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 16.03.2026

68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, where any sum is found credited in the assessee's books and assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source thereof or the explanation furnished is found to be unsatisfactory, the sum so credited may be charged to Income-Tax as the income of the assessee of that previous year. A proviso

SKYCITY BUILDERS AND PROMOTERS PRIVATE LIMITED, ,KHARAR, RUPNAGAR vs. DCIT WARD 6(1), CHANDIGARH JAO ITO 6(1) MOHALI, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the corresponding grounds as raised by the revenue stand dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1066/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/S Skycity Builders & Promoters Pvt. Ltd. Dcit Ward 6(1) बनाम/ Room No.3, 1St Floor Sco-90, City Heart Kharar-Chandigarh Road, Livestock Complex Vs. Kharar, Rupnagar (Punjab) - 140301 Sector – 68, Mohali -160062 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aapcs-2435-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 2. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1217/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Dcit Ward 6(1) M/S Skycity Builders & Promoters Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ Room No.3, 1St Floor Sco-90, City Heart Livestock Complex Kharar-Chandigarh Road, Vs. Sector – 68, Mohali -160062 Kharar, Rupnagar (Punjab) - 140301 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aapcs-2435-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Ms. Yamini (Cit) - Ld. Dr (Virtual) सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05.02.2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 16.03.2026

68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, where any sum is found credited in the assessee's books and assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source thereof or the explanation furnished is found to be unsatisfactory, the sum so credited may be charged to Income-Tax as the income of the assessee of that previous year. A proviso

HOME CONSTRUCTION CO, LUDHIANA,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

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

68,240. The AO also initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271AAB(1A) for undisclosed income and levied interest under Sections 234A, 234B

KANGRA VALLEY GARDEN HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED,KANGRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD DHARAMSHALA, HIMACHAL PRADESH, DHARAMSHALA

Appeal of the assessee is allowed as and by

Bench: This Tribunal As & By Way Of Second Appeal.

234B of the Act. 8. The Ld. AO has erred in initiating penalty under section 271 (l)(c) of the Act. 9. The above grounds are independent and without prejudice to one another.” 5. Record of Hearing 5.1 The hearing in the matter took place before this Tribunal on 09.12.2024 when both the ld. AR and ld. DR were

KANGRA VALLEY GARDEN HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED,KANGRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD DHARAMSHALA, HIMACHAL PRADESH, DHARAMSHALA

Appeal of the assessee is allowed as and by

Bench: This Tribunal As & By Way Of Second Appeal.

234B of the Act. 8. The Ld. AO has erred in initiating penalty under section 271 (l)(c) of the Act. 9. The above grounds are independent and without prejudice to one another.” 5. Record of Hearing 5.1 The hearing in the matter took place before this Tribunal on 09.12.2024 when both the ld. AR and ld. DR were

KANGRA VALLEY GARDEN HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED,KANGRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD DHARAMSHALA, HIMACHAL PRADESH, DHARAMSHALA

Appeal of the assessee is allowed as and by

Bench: This Tribunal As & By Way Of Second Appeal.

234B of the Act. 8. The Ld. AO has erred in initiating penalty under section 271 (l)(c) of the Act. 9. The above grounds are independent and without prejudice to one another.” 5. Record of Hearing 5.1 The hearing in the matter took place before this Tribunal on 09.12.2024 when both the ld. AR and ld. DR were

SHRI RAJIV GUPTA,SIRSA vs. ITO-WARD-2, SIRSA

Bench: The Bench That The Lead

section 68 of the Act. 2.1. That while making the above addition, the learned Income Tax Officer has failed to appreciate the factual substratum of the case, statutory provisions of law and as such, addition so made is highly misconceived, totally arbitrary, wholly unjustified and therefore, unsustainable. 2.2. That while confirming the above addition, the learned Commissioner of Income

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

MOHAMMAD MUSHTAQ,PANCHKULA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE, PANCHKULA

Bench: This Tribunal. The Assessee Is Aggrieved By The Order Bearing No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-

68,628.00. For the last 10 years the assessee is regularly showing his agricultural income from the same piece of land and the same has been accepted by the Department. 4. That the Authorities below had acted unreasonable in contravention of the provisions of the Income Tax Act 1961 while making the additions of Rs.20,15,047.00 for cash deposited

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH vs. ATMA RAM JEWELLERS, CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

68 could not be\nmade\". In the case of Smt Tripta Rani 142 taxmann.com 278, Hon'ble ITAT\nChandigarh has held \"Where cash deposits made in bank accounts of\nproprietorship concern during demonetization period were routed through\nregular books of account of assessee which were not rejected by AO and no\nincriminating material was found during search conducted at premises

SH. SURESH CHAUDHRY,LUDHIANA vs. ITO, W-1(3), LUDHIANA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are dismissed

68 against the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. the Ld Appellate Authority has wrongly & illegally rejected the application for condonation of delay in filing appeal on account of technical glitches of income tax portal being in infancy stages of new e-filing procedure for filing appeals before Commissioner(Appeals. 6. That the interest u/s 234A, 234B, 234C

SH. ASHISH CHAUDHRY,LUDHIANA vs. ITO, W-1(1), LUDHIANA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are dismissed

68 against the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. the Ld Appellate Authority has wrongly & illegally rejected the application for condonation of delay in filing appeal on account of technical glitches of income tax portal being in infancy stages of new e-filing procedure for filing appeals before Commissioner(Appeals. 6. That the interest u/s 234A, 234B, 234C

SH. AMIT CHAUDHRY,LUDHIANA vs. ITO, W-1(1), LUDHIANA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are dismissed

68 against the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. the Ld Appellate Authority has wrongly & illegally rejected the application for condonation of delay in filing appeal on account of technical glitches of income tax portal being in infancy stages of new e-filing procedure for filing appeals before Commissioner(Appeals. 6. That the interest u/s 234A, 234B, 234C

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

234B & 234C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which is consequential in nature. The AO shall charge the Interest as per law. 5.4 Ground of Appeal No. 6 is regarding penalty u/s 271(1)(C) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which is premature in nature. ITA No.992 & 993/CHD/2024 & CO 46 & 45/CHD/2024 A.Y.2017-18 & 2016-17 14 5.5 Ground of Appeal

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

234B & 234C of the\nIncome Tax Act, 1961 which is consequential in nature. The AO shall charge the Interest as per\nlaw.\n5.4 Ground of Appeal No. 6 is regarding penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act,\n1961 which is premature in nature.\n5.5 Ground of Appeal No. 7 is consequential in nature.\n5.6 Ground of Appeal

MANJINDER SINGH,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO WARD 5 (5), CHANDIGARH

In the result, we set- aside the matter to the file of the AO and appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

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

section 68 without having been able to understand the vital structure and the accounting entries and without fully and comprehensively understanding the case. 3. That the Ld. AO has wrongly and illegally made addition of Rs. 42,00,000/- ignoring the pleadings on record and against the facts and circumstances of the case and without appreciating the surrounding circumstances