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)

1. passing order u/s 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 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act on surmises and conjectures and ignoring the documents and details

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)

1,53,01,574, against the returned income of Rs. 2,68,240. The AO also initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271AAB(1A) for undisclosed income and levied interest under Sections 234A, 234B

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 is of Rs.9,96,370/- and interest under Section 234C is of Rs.43,369/-]. The original assessment order dated 06.12.2017 is under challenge by the assessee before CIT(A) and its fate is not known

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

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

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

1) had been issued on 11/12/2018 asking to explain the source of the investment in the impugned property as above. The Assessing Officer after elaborating the facts in para 4 of the assessment order and further the share of investment of the assessee of Rs.2,20,00,000/-for such purchase deal given as advance asked the assessee to furnish

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)

234B of the Act which are not leviable on the facts of the appellant. 6. In the present appeal, the assessee has filed a petition seeking permission to raise and argue additional grounds, which are purely legal in nature. The proposed additional grounds are reproduced below: 1. "That the order of assessment u/s 147/144B of the Act passed

WARYAM STEEL CASTINGS PRIVATE LIMITED,LUDHIANA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and the Cross appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

234B, and 234C was also charged. 4. Against the order of the Ld. AO the assessee went in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) in the impugned order held as under: 5.1. The facts relevant for the present appeal: 5.1.1. The Appellant is a Private Limited Company engaged in the business of manufacture of steel products

ASTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, LUDHIANA, AAYAKAR BHAWAN vs. WARYAM STEEL CASTING PRIVATE LIMITED, KANGANWAL ROAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and the Cross appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

234B, and 234C was also charged. 4. Against the order of the Ld. AO the assessee went in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) in the impugned order held as under: 5.1. The facts relevant for the present appeal: 5.1.1. The Appellant is a Private Limited Company engaged in the business of manufacture of steel products

M/S ASHA TECHNOLOGIES,SIRMOUR vs. ADDL. CIT, SOLAN

In the result, both the above appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed as aforesaid in respect of impugned orders dt

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

1. during survey u./s 133A on 7th & 8th of December, 2009, which was annexurised as A-5. This day book for A.Y. 2007-08 was computerized and ledger and cash books were prepared, copy of which was handed to the assessee for its comments. But it failed to substantiate the same. Explanation furnished by the assessee is not accepted

M/S ASHA TECHNOLOGIES,KALA AMB vs. ITO, SIRMOUR

In the result, both the above appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed as aforesaid in respect of impugned orders dt

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

1. during survey u./s 133A on 7th & 8th of December, 2009, which was annexurised as A-5. This day book for A.Y. 2007-08 was computerized and ledger and cash books were prepared, copy of which was handed to the assessee for its comments. But it failed to substantiate the same. Explanation furnished by the assessee is not accepted

RAM SINGH,DISTRICT KAITHAL, HARYANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, KAITHAL, INCOME TAX OFFICE, AMBALA ROAD, KAITHAL

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: The Appeal Is Finally Heard Or Disposed Of.

234B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 5. That the Ld. Assessing Officer has erred in not considering allowing the benefit of cash withdrawal and redeposit in the bank account. 6. That the Appellant craves leave to add or amend the grounds of appeals before the appeal is finally heard or disposed of. 3. Briefly the facts of the case

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

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

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

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

1) dated\n21.12.2019 which was passed under Section 143(3) of\nthe Act which is hereinafter referred to as the “Impugned\nAssessment order”.\n2.6\nThe assessee being aggrieved by the ‘Impugned\nAssessment Order' preferred first appeal under Section\n246A of the Act before ld. CIT(A) who by the impugned\norder has partly allowed the appeal

MOHAMMAD MUSHTAQ,PANCHKULA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE, PANCHKULA

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

1,29,28,611.00 during the relevant assessment year and after deduction of expenses had earned agricultural Income of Rs.46,68,628.00. 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

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

Bench: The Bench That The Lead

1. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-Hisar has erred both in law and on facts in upholding the determination of total income of the appellant at Rs. 42,84,650/- as against declared income of Rs. 2,84,650/- in an order of assessment 24.12.2018 under section 143(3) of the Act. 2. That the learned