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

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

234B, 234C and 234D nor the appellant can have any grievance in this regard. Accordingly, ground of appeal no. 3 is dismissed 14. The ld. CIT(A) by impugned order has sustained the order of ld. AO dated27.12.2018. ITA 532/CHD/2023 A.Y. 2012-13 8 15. The assessee before this Tribunal has raised following grounds of appeal in Form 36 which

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.

3. The Ld CTT(A) has erred in not providing a personal hearing to the appellant before passing the order. 4. The Ld CIT(A) / Ld. AO have erred in invoking the provisions of section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") with respect to share premium amount received by the appellant from non-resident individuals

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.

3. The Ld CTT(A) has erred in not providing a personal hearing to the appellant before passing the order. 4. The Ld CIT(A) / Ld. AO have erred in invoking the provisions of section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") with respect to share premium amount received by the appellant from non-resident individuals

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.

3. The Ld CTT(A) has erred in not providing a personal hearing to the appellant before passing the order. 4. The Ld CIT(A) / Ld. AO have erred in invoking the provisions of section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") with respect to share premium amount received by the appellant from non-resident individuals

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

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)

Sections 234A, 234B, 234C, and 234D. 4. Against the order of the AO the assessee went in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). 4.1 The Ld. CIT(A) carefully examined the assessment order dated 29.03.2024, wherein the Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs.1,50,33,334/- on account of alleged "on money" received on the sale of three

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)

3. books of accounts of assessee, there are cash payments of Rs.1,23,299/- on different dates like: on 11.11.2006, 15.11.2006, 20.11.2006- Rs. 20,000/-each and on 1.12.2006 Rs. 13,299/-. On the other hand in impounded Day Book these payments are made on 1.11.2006 for Rs. 1,23,299/- at one go. This is unexplained cash credit

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)

3. books of accounts of assessee, there are cash payments of Rs.1,23,299/- on different dates like: on 11.11.2006, 15.11.2006, 20.11.2006- Rs. 20,000/-each and on 1.12.2006 Rs. 13,299/-. On the other hand in impounded Day Book these payments are made on 1.11.2006 for Rs. 1,23,299/- at one go. This is unexplained cash credit

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

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

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

3,29,07,000/-) as unexplained money u/s\n69A of the IT. Act.\"\n5.4 The appellant is contending that the cash deposited was on account of\nsale of jewellary. Appellant is pleading that the AO has made the addition only\non suspicion hypothetical imagination, presumption and assumptions.\nAppellant contends that the sale invoices are supported by documentary\nrecords

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

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

3) has taken place in the case of the assessee for the relevant year”. In para-3 also, it has been recorded by Ld. AO that “On physical verification as well as from the ITD database, it is gathered that no return has been filed by the assessee for the A.Y.2012-13…”. Similar fact has been reiterated at paras

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

3) has taken place in the case of the assessee for the relevant year”. In para-3 also, it has been recorded by Ld. AO that “On physical verification as well as from the ITD database, it is gathered that no return has been filed by the assessee for the A.Y.2012-13…”. Similar fact has been reiterated at paras

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

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

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

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:

234B and 234C of the IT Act, 1961 accordingly. 15. The copy of order of AO passed under section 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act, 1961 is dt. 24/12/2018, the same is perused by us minutely. 16. That on 03/04/2019 the assessee made an application under section 154 of the Act before ITO ward 6(4) Ludhiana wherein