RAJIV KUMAR GOYAL,DHURI vs. DCIT, CC-2, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: This Hon’Ble Tribunal Under Section 253 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 As Amended From Time To Time. 2. The Assessee Is Aggrieved By Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Dated 03/02/2023 In Appeal No. 10850/2018-19/It/Cit(A)-5/Ldh/2021-22 For A.Y. 2019-20 Under Section 250(6) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Which Was Dismissed. Therefore The Present Second Appeal Under Section 253 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Before Us Against The Aforesaid Order Dt. 03/02/2023 Which Is Hereiafter Referred To As The Impugned Order. Factual Matrix 3. The Assessee Had For The Relevant Year I.E; A.Y. 2019-20 Was Also Engaged In The Same Business I.E; Manufacturing Of Pvc Pipes & Had Filed

253 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 before us against the aforesaid order dt. 03/02/2023 which is hereiafter referred to as the impugned order. Factual Matrix 3. The assessee had for the relevant year i.e; A.Y. 2019-20 was also engaged in the same business i.e; manufacturing of PVC pipes and had filed his return of income under section

BANUR BROTHER ,PATIALA vs. ITO-WARD-1, AMBALA

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed as and by way of remand to Ld

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

253 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The order of Ld. CIT(A) is passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Factual Matrix 2. The Appellant was a partnership firm engaged as commission agent of food grains. The Appellant sells the agricultural produce to the Government Agencies and Trade Associations as a commission agent and receives

SWARN GANGA JEWELLERS,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 4(1) NOW DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: This Tribunal Being Aggrieved By An Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/1045180258(1) For A.Y. 2017-18 Dt. 05/09/2022 Which Is Hereinafter Referred To As The “Impugned Order”. The Impugned Order Is Passed By Cit(A) In Terms Of Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. Factual Matrix 2. That Survey U/S 133A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Was Conducted On The Business Premises Of The Assessee On 06/09/2016. The Assessee Surrendered A Sum Of Rs. 50,00,000/- During The Survey & Paid Tax Thereon. The Return Of Income Was Filed On 01/11/2017 Declaring A Total Income Of Rs. 89,48,260/-. Thereafter The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny Under Compulsory Scrutiny Guidelines & Notice Under Section 143(2) Of The Act Was Issued On 11/09/2018. The Assessment Was Finalised Vide Order Dt. 23/12/2019 Whereby Addition Of Rs. 95,70,882/- Was Made U/S 68 R.W..S 115Bbe Of The Act.

253 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, before this Tribunal being aggrieved by an order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022-23/1045180258(1) for A.Y. 2017-18 dt. 05/09/2022 which is hereinafter referred to as the “impugned order”. The impugned order is passed by CIT(A) in terms of Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Factual Matrix 2. That survey u/s 133A

ITO, W-1(3), CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. RENU ANAND, CHANDIGARH

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

253 of the Income Tax Act, 1961(which is hereinafter referred to as Act). The Revenue is aggrievedby the order dt. 29/08/2018 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in First Appeal No. 10316/16-17 which is hereinafter referred to as the “impugned order”. The relevant assessment year is 2013-14 and the corresponding previous year period is From 01/04/2012

INCOME TAX OFICER, BC BAZAR vs. THE KESRI UNION FARMERS SERVICE CO-OP SOCIETY LTD, AMBALA

In the result appeal of Department / Revenue is dismissed

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

68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and has invoked 115BBE of the Act too by virtue of which assessee society is charged rate @ 60% i.e above normal rate of taxes plus. 19. Being aggrieved by the order of AO dt. 24/12/2019 under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the assessee

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)

Section 68 of the Act." 13.1 Similarly, the ITAT Visakhapatnam in “ACIT Vs. Hirapanna Jewellers”, ITA No. 253(Viz) of 2020 [2021] 128 taxmann.com

DCIT, C-1(1) , CHANDIGARH vs. M/S FIDELITY INFORMATION SERVICES INDIA PVT. LTD., CHANDIGARH

In the result, the cross-objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

section 253(4) of the Act, the cross objections before the Tribunal are required to be filed within 30 days from the receipt of notice of appeal filed by the Revenue Department. In this case, the appeal by the Department was received by the Assessee company on January 19, 2021 and thus, 30 days expired on February

M/S PUNJAB TOURISM DEVELOPMENET CORPORATION LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-1(1), CHANDIGARH

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ao)

68,75,253/-) we adopt our observations, findings and Conclusions which we have given for identical situation in ITA No. 139/Chd/2020 particularly inpara 7.1, 7.4 7.5, 7.6 and 7.7. 31.2 We notice that in the impugned order the Ld. CIT(A) has laid much emphasis on section

M/S PUNJAB TOURISM DEVELOPMENET CORPORATION LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-1(1), CHANDIGARH

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ao)

68,75,253/-) we adopt our observations, findings and Conclusions which we have given for identical situation in ITA No. 139/Chd/2020 particularly inpara 7.1, 7.4 7.5, 7.6 and 7.7. 31.2 We notice that in the impugned order the Ld. CIT(A) has laid much emphasis on section

M/S PUNJAB TOURISM DEVELOPMENET CORPORATION LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-1(1), CHANDIGARH

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ao)

68,75,253/-) we adopt our observations, findings and Conclusions which we have given for identical situation in ITA No. 139/Chd/2020 particularly inpara 7.1, 7.4 7.5, 7.6 and 7.7. 31.2 We notice that in the impugned order the Ld. CIT(A) has laid much emphasis on section

M/S PUNJAB TOURISM DEVELOPMENET CORPORATION LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-1(1), CHANDIGARH

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ao)

68,75,253/-) we adopt our observations, findings and Conclusions which we have given for identical situation in ITA No. 139/Chd/2020 particularly inpara 7.1, 7.4 7.5, 7.6 and 7.7. 31.2 We notice that in the impugned order the Ld. CIT(A) has laid much emphasis on section

SANJAY SINGAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on account of unexplained cash credit in each appeal i.e. ITA Nos. 708, 710, 71 l/Chd/2018; ITA No. 714, 716 and 717/Chd/2018; ITA No. 718 &719/Chd/2018; and 705/Chd/2018 83. Similarly, addition made by the AO by estimating the expenses on commission alleged to have been incurred by the assessee for arranging such long

M/S SANJAY SINGAL HUF,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on account of unexplained cash credit in each appeal i.e. ITA Nos. 708, 710, 71 l/Chd/2018; ITA No. 714, 716 and 717/Chd/2018; ITA No. 718 &719/Chd/2018; and 705/Chd/2018 83. Similarly, addition made by the AO by estimating the expenses on commission alleged to have been incurred by the assessee for arranging such long

SHRI KRISHAN KUMAR JALAN,BANGALORE vs. ITO, W-1, SIRSA

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

253 of the\nIncome Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as Act) as and by way\nof second appeal before this Tribunal. The Assessee is aggrieved by the\norder dt. 29/03/2010 passed in First Appeal No. 111/HSR/2016-17 which\npertains to the assessee. The order dt. 29/03/2010 is passed by\nCommissioner of Income Tax (Appeals

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA vs. AMARJIT SINGH , BATHINDA

In the result, Cross Objections of the assessee

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahay

68 read with Section 115BBE amounting to the tune of Rs.9,65,71,414/-. In other words, both the grounds are in support of the CIT(A)’s finding. If we peruse sub-clause (4) of Section 253

LATE KULPRAKASH BHARDWAJ THROUGH LEGAL HEIR KARTIKEYA BHARDWAJ,CENTRE POINT HOTEL, DHARAMSHALA, KANGRA vs. PCIT-1, CHANIGARH, CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

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

68 at normal rates instead of invoking Section 115BBE and initiating penalty under Section 271AAC. 8. The Ld. Ld. AR submitted that the order passed under Section 263 is illegal and non-est in the eyes of law, having been passed against a dead person. It was contended that the department was fully aware of the death

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)

253 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act for short). The assessee is aggrieved by the order bearing No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1059642201(1) dated 12.01.2024 passed by ld. CIT(A) which is hereinafter referred to as the “impugned order”, which is passed under Section 250 of the Act. The relevant assessment ITA 100/CHD/2024 A.Y. 2010-11 2 year

SH. BALJIT SINGH,LUDHIANA vs. PR. CIT, LUDHIANA -1, LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

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

68 with regard to unsecured loans and payment of interest thereon as a consequence thereof expenditure of Rs. 1,32,97,887/- has remained unexplained. The other issue dealt by him in para 4 & 5(supra) of the impugned order stands dealt with in fresh assessment order dt. 27/03/2023-i.e; the consequential order passed in pursuance to order under section

VERMA JEWELLERS,SOLAN vs. DCIT/ACIT, CIRCLE, PARWANOO

Appeal of the assessee is allowed as and by way of remand

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

253 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as and by way of second appeal under the Act. The assessee is aggrieved by order dt. 25/10/2023 passed in first appeal bearing No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023- 24/1057320237(1) of Ld. CIT(A) under section 250 of the Act, which is hereinafter referred to as the “impugned order”. Factual Matrix 2. The assessee