DCIT CC-1, LUDHIANA vs. M/S OSWAL FASHION (P) LTD., LUDHIANA

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 246A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The appellant has to approach the appropriate Court for the same. Hence, this ground does not require any adjudication by this office. 3.3 Grounds of Appeal Nos. 4 & 5 relate to addition of Rs. 2,30,00,000/- for assessment year 2008-09 and addition

JINDAL PADDING PRIVATE LIMITED,VILLAGE MANNPURA, TEHSIL NALAG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER PARWANO, PARWANO

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

68 of the Act. The net taxable income of the assessee was assessed at Rs.33,37,263/-. Accordingly, notice under Section 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act was issued on 23.09.2013 calling upon the assessee company to show cause and explain as to why penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act should

ZORA SINGH ,FATEHGARH SAHIB vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - SIRHIND, SIRHIND

Appeal of the assessee is allowed as and

Bench: This Tribunal. The Assessee Is Aggrieved

68 of the Act and be considered your income for the assessment year 2017-18. Your reply should be given on or before 26.9.2019 failing which the assessment will be completed by treating as if you have nothing to say in this regard. Notice u/s 142(1) of the IT. Act 1961 is also issued.” 2.6 In response

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.

68 of the IT Act, 1961. Name & Address Share Premium Jonathan Mark Edward Boyv r, A3 Spyglass Glass, 96 Rs 11,27,35,837/- Repulse Bay Road, Hong Kong, HK, HONGKONG Nicholas T Allan, Kentish are House, Cullompton, Rs 5,67,56,872/- EX152BR, United Kingdom Total Rs 16,94,92,709/- 2.12 Perusal of the Profit & Loss Account

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.

68 of the IT Act, 1961. Name & Address Share Premium Jonathan Mark Edward Boyv r, A3 Spyglass Glass, 96 Rs 11,27,35,837/- Repulse Bay Road, Hong Kong, HK, HONGKONG Nicholas T Allan, Kentish are House, Cullompton, Rs 5,67,56,872/- EX152BR, United Kingdom Total Rs 16,94,92,709/- 2.12 Perusal of the Profit & Loss Account

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.

68 of the IT Act, 1961. Name & Address Share Premium Jonathan Mark Edward Boyv r, A3 Spyglass Glass, 96 Rs 11,27,35,837/- Repulse Bay Road, Hong Kong, HK, HONGKONG Nicholas T Allan, Kentish are House, Cullompton, Rs 5,67,56,872/- EX152BR, United Kingdom Total Rs 16,94,92,709/- 2.12 Perusal of the Profit & Loss Account

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, AAYAKAR BHAWAN vs. ROCKMAN INDUSTRIES LIMITED, -

In the result order of CIT(A) is sustained as passed and the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

246A of the Act before CIT(A) who by the impugned order dt. 04/10/2023 has allowed the appeal of the assessee by placing reliance on the decision and order of this Tribunal in Assessee’s own case in ITA No. 1264/Chd/2018 dt. 20/08/2020. Proceedings before this Tribunal The Revenue being aggrieved by the impugned order has filed an appeal

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AAYAKAR BHAWAN vs. ROCKMAN INDUSTRIES LIMITED, FOCAL POINT

In the result order of CIT(A) is sustained as passed and the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

246A of the Act before CIT(A) who by the impugned order dt. 04/10/2023 has allowed the appeal of the assessee by placing reliance on the decision and order of this Tribunal in Assessee’s own case in ITA No. 1264/Chd/2018 dt. 20/08/2020. Proceedings before this Tribunal The Revenue being aggrieved by the impugned order has filed an appeal

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, , AAYAKAR BHAWAN vs. ROCKMAN INDUSTRIES LIMITED, -

In the result order of CIT(A) is sustained as passed and the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

246A of the Act before CIT(A) who by the impugned order dt. 04/10/2023 has allowed the appeal of the assessee by placing reliance on the decision and order of this Tribunal in Assessee’s own case in ITA No. 1264/Chd/2018 dt. 20/08/2020. Proceedings before this Tribunal The Revenue being aggrieved by the impugned order has filed an appeal

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4,, AAYAKAR BHAWAN vs. ROCKMAN INDUSTRIES LIMITED, -

In the result order of CIT(A) is sustained as passed and the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

246A of the Act before CIT(A) who by the impugned order dt. 04/10/2023 has allowed the appeal of the assessee by placing reliance on the decision and order of this Tribunal in Assessee’s own case in ITA No. 1264/Chd/2018 dt. 20/08/2020. Proceedings before this Tribunal The Revenue being aggrieved by the impugned order has filed an appeal

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, LUDHIANA, AAYAKAR BHAWAN vs. ROCKMAN INDUSTRIES LIMITED, -

In the result order of CIT(A) is sustained as passed and the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

246A of the Act before CIT(A) who by the impugned order dt. 04/10/2023 has allowed the appeal of the assessee by placing reliance on the decision and order of this Tribunal in Assessee’s own case in ITA No. 1264/Chd/2018 dt. 20/08/2020. Proceedings before this Tribunal The Revenue being aggrieved by the impugned order has filed an appeal

DCIT CIRCLE-4, LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA vs. ROCKMAN INDUSTRIES LTD, LUDHIANA

In the result order of CIT(A) is sustained as passed and the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

246A of the Act before CIT(A) who by the impugned order dt. 04/10/2023 has allowed the appeal of the assessee by placing reliance on the decision and order of this Tribunal in Assessee’s own case in ITA No. 1264/Chd/2018 dt. 20/08/2020. Proceedings before this Tribunal The Revenue being aggrieved by the impugned order has filed an appeal

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, LUDHIANA, - vs. ROCKMAN INDUSTRIES LTD, -

In the result order of CIT(A) is sustained as passed and the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

246A of the Act before CIT(A) who by the impugned order dt. 04/10/2023 has allowed the appeal of the assessee by placing reliance on the decision and order of this Tribunal in Assessee’s own case in ITA No. 1264/Chd/2018 dt. 20/08/2020. Proceedings before this Tribunal The Revenue being aggrieved by the impugned order has filed an appeal

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, AAYAKAR BHAWAN vs. ROCKMAN INDUSTRIES LIMITED, -

In the result order of CIT(A) is sustained as passed and the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

246A of the Act before CIT(A) who by the impugned order dt. 04/10/2023 has allowed the appeal of the assessee by placing reliance on the decision and order of this Tribunal in Assessee’s own case in ITA No. 1264/Chd/2018 dt. 20/08/2020. Proceedings before this Tribunal The Revenue being aggrieved by the impugned order has filed an appeal

ATAM PARKASH,PATIALA vs. CIT(APPEALS), PATIALA, PATIALA

Bench: SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

246A of the Act as he was aggrieved by the Assessment Order dt. 11/02/2014 passed under section 144 of the Act. 2. Factual Matrix 2.1 That the assessee filed return declaring on income of Rs. 4,44,070/- on 31/03/2012. Thereafter, the case was selected for scrutiny through CASS. Notice under section

MALTI GARG,AMBALA, HARYANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5, AMBALA, HARYANA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

246A of the Act before CIT(A) who by the impugned order has dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Being aggrieved by the impugned order the assessee has preferred appeal before this Tribunal and has raised following grounds in Form 36 which are as under: 1. That Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the order of Ld. AO passed

GAURAV GOEL,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO, WARD 4(3), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Paresh M. Joshiआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 132/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Gaurav Goel, Vs. The Ito, बनाम H. No. 1676, Sector 33-D, Ward 4(3), Chandigarh Chandigarh "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Ahgpg3162Q अपीलाथ"/ Assessee ""यथ"/ Repsondent ( Physical Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Jaspal Sharma, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Vivek Vardhan, Jcit, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 17.12.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 24.02.2025 आदेश/Order Per Paresh M. Joshi, Jm :

246A of the Act who by the impugned 132-chd-2024 Gaurav Goel, Chandigarh 10 order has sustained the assessment order dated 23.11.2019 of ld. A.O. 2.15 The Assessee being aggrieved by the impugned order has filed the present appeal before his Tribunal and inter alia has raised following Grounds of appeal against the impugned order which are as under

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/-. 2.8 That the assessee being aggrieved by the aforesaid assessment order dated 07.12.2019 had preferred first appeal in terms of Section 246A

MS EKOM EXIM PRIVATE LIMITED, SCO-11, SECTOR-4D, BATTAN LAL ROAD, GT ROAD, MANDI GOBINDGARH,FATEHGARH SAHIB vs. THE JURISDICTIONAL OFFICER ACIT,DCIT CENTRE CIRCLE PATIALA, PUNJAB

In the result, impugned order is set aside as and by way of remand on denovo basis

Bench: This Tribunal. The Assessee Is Aggrieved By The Order Dt. 05/10/2023 Passed In 1St Appeal No. 10596/Rot/Patiala/It/Cit(A)-5 Ldh/2019-20 Pased Under Section 250(6) Of The Act By Ld. Cit(A) Which Is Hereinafter Referred To As The “Impugned Order”. The Relevant A.Y. Is 2017-18 & The Corresponding Previous Year Period Is From 01/04/2016 To 31/03/2017. 2. The Assessee Being Aggrieved By The Assessment Order Dt. 30/12/2019 Under Section 144 R.W.S 147 Of Ld. Ao Ward-2, Mandi, Govindgarh, Head Quarter, Sirhind Wherein Total Income Of The Assessee Was Computed As Rs.

section 246A of the Act who by the impugned order has dismissed the appeal of the Assessee. Consequently impugned assessment order dt. 30/12/2019 of Ld. AO stands sustained. 3. The assessee being aggrieved by the impugned order has preferred second appeal u/s 253 of the Act before us and in form No. 36 which is the form of appeal