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

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, 234C

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)

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. Return

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)

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. Return

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

DCIT, C-4, LUDHIANA vs. AARTI INTERNATIONAL 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

DCIT, C-4, LUDHIANA vs. AARTI INTERNATIONAL 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

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)

section 40A(3) of Income Tax Act 1961 .Therefore, this amount of Rs 1,23,299/- is added back to the income of the assessee being unexplained cash credit since the same are not reflected in assessee's regular books of accounts on those relevant dates.. Since the above transaction also violated the provisions of section

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)

section 40A(3) of Income Tax Act 1961 .Therefore, this amount of Rs 1,23,299/- is added back to the income of the assessee being unexplained cash credit since the same are not reflected in assessee's regular books of accounts on those relevant dates.. Since the above transaction also violated the provisions of section