GURMELO DEVI,JAGADHARI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, YUMNANAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

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

68 and 69 of the Act. The Ld. AO assessed the income and raised a demand of Rs.66,26,980/-. 5.1 It is the case of the assessee that due to the serious illness and subsequent unfortunate demise of her nephew Mr. Mukesh Kumar, she was under considerable mental stress and unable to effectively participate in the assessment proceedings

SHRI BALBIR SINGH VERMA,SHIMLA vs. PR.CIT, SHIMLA

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

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

249 on money borrowed from others. Out of this, the AO disallowed Rs.1,38,000 as an expense. This amount was calculated at 12% on Rs.11,50,000, which was a loan the assessee gave for office space. The AO said this disallowance was made because the assessee did not provide any proof that giving the loan was necessary

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

249 of Income Tax Act, which provides powers to the ld. Commissioner to condone the delay in filing the appeal before the Commissioner. Similarly, it has been used in section 5 of Indian Limitation Act, 1963. Whenever interpretation and construction of this expression has fallen for consideration before Hon’ble High Court as well as before

JATINDER NATH,LUDHIANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(4), LUDHIANA, RISHI NAGAR, LUDHIANA

In the result, both appeals are allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahay

68 of the Income Tax Act. ITA No.728&729/CHD/2024 A.Y.2011-12 3 5. A perusal of the record would reveal that according to the AO, status of filing of return is not ascertainable but certain FDs, time deposits etc. were noticed from the accounts of a Co-operative Society. Therefore, he issued a notice under Section 148 of the Income

JATINDER NATH,LUDHIANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(4), LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA

In the result, both appeals are allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahay

68 of the Income Tax Act. ITA No.728&729/CHD/2024 A.Y.2011-12 3 5. A perusal of the record would reveal that according to the AO, status of filing of return is not ascertainable but certain FDs, time deposits etc. were noticed from the accounts of a Co-operative Society. Therefore, he issued a notice under Section 148 of the Income

A.B. SUGARS LIMITED,PUNJAB vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

section 80-IA{4)(iv) is also stated at Rs. 23,94,34,249/- at Point No. 30. Annexure 2 of our Reply to TPO provides with the Computation of the company profit in which it can be observed that company claimed 100% deduction of the taxable profit of Power Division amounting to Rs. 23,94,34,249/- which

A.B. SUGARS LIMITED,PUNJAB vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1, CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

section 80-IA{4)(iv) is also stated at Rs. 23,94,34,249/- at Point No. 30. Annexure 2 of our Reply to TPO provides with the Computation of the company profit in which it can be observed that company claimed 100% deduction of the taxable profit of Power Division amounting to Rs. 23,94,34,249/- which

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

249 of Income Tax Act, which provides\npowers to the 1d. Commissioner to condone the delay in filing\nthe appeal before the Commissioner. Similarly, it has been\nused in section 5 of Indian Limitation Act, 1963. Whenever\ninterpretation and construction of this expression has fallen\nfor consideration before Hon'ble High Court as well as before\nthe

DEEPIKA SINGLA,BARNALA vs. ITO, WARD 1, BARNALA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 610/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year. : 2017-18 Deepika Singla, Vs The Ito, Lekh Raj Moti Lal, Ward-1, Sadar Bazar, Barnala. Barnala. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Awzps9654H अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Nagesh Behl, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. Cit Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 24.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.01.2026 O R D E R Hybrid Hearing Per Raj Pal Yadav, Vp

249 of Income Tax Act, which provides powers to the ld. Commissioner to condone the delay in filing the appeal before the Commissioner. Similarly, it has been used in section 5 of Indian Limitation Act, 1963. Whenever interpretation and construction of this expression has fallen for consideration before Hon’ble High Court as well as before

DEVI DAYAL,KAITHAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 , KAITHAL

In the result, appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 899/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09 Shri Devi Dayal, Vs The Ito, Pundri Anaj Mandi, Ward – 1, Kaithal-Haryana 136026. Kaithal. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aajpd5851H अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, Ca & Ms. Shruti Khandelwal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Manav Bansal, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 30.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.09.2025

249 of Income Tax Act, which provides powers to the ld. Commissioner to condone the delay in filing the appeal before the Commissioner. Similarly, it has been used in section 5 of Indian Limitation Act, 1963. Whenever interpretation and construction of this expression has fallen for consideration before Hon’ble High Court as well as before

SMT. GINNY SOIN,LUDHIANA vs. ACIT, CC-II, LUDHIANA

The appeals are partly allowed

249 of Income Tax Act,\nwhich provides powers to the ld. Commissioner to condone\nthe delay in filing the appeal before the Commissioner.\nSimilarly, it has been used in section 5 of Indian Limitation\nAct, 1963. Whenever interpretation and construction of this\nexpression has fallen for consideration before Hon'ble High\nCourt as well as before

SMT. GINNY SOIN,LUDHIANA vs. ACIT, CC-II, LUDHIANA

The appeals are partly allowed

249 of Income Tax Act,\nwhich provides powers to the ld. Commissioner to condone\nthe delay in filing the appeal before the Commissioner.\nSimilarly, it has been used in section 5 of Indian Limitation\nAct, 1963. Whenever interpretation and construction of this\nexpression has fallen for consideration before Hon'ble High\nCourt as well as before

SH. DINESH SOIN,LUDHIANA vs. ACIT, LUDHIANA

The appeals are partly allowed

249 of Income Tax Act,\nwhich provides powers to the ld. Commissioner to condone\nthe delay in filing the appeal before the Commissioner.\nSimilarly, it has been used in section 5 of Indian Limitation\nAct, 1963. Whenever interpretation and construction of this\nexpression has fallen for consideration before Hon'ble High\nCourt as well as before

SUKHWINDER SINGH,AMBALA CANTT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, AMBALA

The appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

68, whereas the same were from business transactions of assessee and were from explainable sources. 4. That the Ld. AO has erred in law by disallowing Rs. 2,413211- as business income by giving reason of non-existence of business whereas the assessee was engaged in business of sale purchase of old vehicles on commission basis with PSU and insurance

M/S DIN DAYAL PURSOTAM LAL,SIRSA vs. PR.CIT, ROHTAK

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

68 of the Act. This position stands settled vide inter-alia, the following decisions : i) ITA No. 325/2008 (Del) CIT vs. Ritu Anurag Agarwal "As there was no case for disallowance for corresponding purchases, no addition could be made under Section 68 in as much as it is not in dispute that the creditors outstanding related to purchases

M/S DIN DAYAL PURSOTAM LAL,SIRSA vs. PR.CIT, ROHTAK

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

68 of the Act. This position stands settled vide inter-alia, the following decisions : i) ITA No. 325/2008 (Del) CIT vs. Ritu Anurag Agarwal "As there was no case for disallowance for corresponding purchases, no addition could be made under Section 68 in as much as it is not in dispute that the creditors outstanding related to purchases

M/S DIN DAYAL PURSOTAM LAL,SIRSA vs. PR.CIT, ROHTAK

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

68 of the Act. This position stands settled vide inter-alia, the following decisions : i) ITA No. 325/2008 (Del) CIT vs. Ritu Anurag Agarwal "As there was no case for disallowance for corresponding purchases, no addition could be made under Section 68 in as much as it is not in dispute that the creditors outstanding related to purchases

ARYANS EDUCATIONAL AND CHARITABLE TRUST REGD, MOHALI,MOHALI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, EXEMPTIONS, CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1136/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2025-26 Aryans Educational & The Cit (Exemptions), Charitable Trust, Regd.Mohali Vs Chandigarh, C/O Shri Tej Mohan Singh, Advocate, # 527, Sector 10-D, Chandigarh. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aabta7550L अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Tej Mohan Singh, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Manav Bansal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 07.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.09.2025

68 of the Act treating corpus donations received from students to be anonymous donations. 8. We find that the not considering the evidence filed by the Assessee during the appellate proceedings before the ld. CIT(A) is not justified on the part of the ld. CIT(A). In fact, the case laws relied upon