HOMELIFE BUILDCON PRIVATE LIMITED,SUNVIEW ENCLAVE, AYALI KALAN, LUDHIANA,PUNJAB vs. SMT. SAMANDEEP KAUR DCIT-CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, LUDHIANA, PUNJAB

In the result, Revenue appeal is dismissed and appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 880/Chd/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2021-22 Homelife Buildcon Private Limited Sunview Enclave, Ayali Kalan, Ludhiana, Punjab-142027 स्थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AABCH5690M अपीलार्थी/Appellant बनाम The DCIT Central Circle-1 Ludhiana, Punjab प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 1036/Chd/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2021-22 बनाम Homelife Buildcon Private Limited Sunview Enclave, Ayali

68 Gurmeet Singh Bhangu Hard Disk Loose Sheets containing 70-73 details of cash paid to Gurmeet Singh with description "Manu Ji-cash paid to Gurmeet Singh C/o AjayPrabhakar" Ravi Kapoor Slip found form Pavments in connection 14 H. No. the E-Mail ID of with some Plot No. 286 & 7200/50bawaColone Sh. Ravi Kapoor 287 without any y, Naveen nagar

SANJEEV KUMAR GOYAL,FATEHABAD vs. DCIT, CC-2, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assesse 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 The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Dt. 20/01/2023 In Appeal No. 10853/2018-19/It/Cit(A)-5/Ldh/2021-22 For The 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. 20/01/2023 Which Is Hereinafter Referred To As The Impugned Order.

2. The assessee is aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A) dt. 20/01/2023 in Appeal No. 10853/2018-19/IT/CIT(A)-5/Ldh/2021-22 for the 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

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

DCIT, C-,1 (E), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S PUNJAB MEDICAL FOUNDATION CHARITABLE TRUST, JALANDHAR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: S/Shri N.K. Saini, Vice- & Rajpal Yadav, Vice-"नधा"रण वष"/ Asstt.Year: 2014-15 Dcit, Cir.1(Exemption) M/S.Punjab Medical Foundation Chandigarh. Vs. Charitable Trust 63-64, Waryam Nagar Cool Road, Jalandhar Pan : Aaatp 5171 B (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri Sudhir Sehal, Advocate Assessee By Revenue By : Shri Ashok K. Khana, Addl.Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 18/11/2020 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/12/2020 आदेश/O R D E R

253 CTR 518 for this proposition. 4.12 The appellant has further justified the payments made to Doctor R.S. Chahal not a trustee but a relative and is a renowned practitioner in this field in this part country. He has been drawing amounts in this range for the last five years and have been filed to support its contentions

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

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)

253 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The order of Ld. CIT(A) dt. 30/01/2012 in the aforesaid appeal No. IT/315/2009-10/Sml is hereinafter referred to as “impugned order”. Factual Matrix 1. The assessee M/s Asha Technologies is a partnership firm. The relevant AY is 2007-08. The corresponding previous year is 2006-07. The assessee firm is engaged

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)

253 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The order of Ld. CIT(A) dt. 30/01/2012 in the aforesaid appeal No. IT/315/2009-10/Sml is hereinafter referred to as “impugned order”. Factual Matrix 1. The assessee M/s Asha Technologies is a partnership firm. The relevant AY is 2007-08. The corresponding previous year is 2006-07. The assessee firm is engaged

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

253 contemplates that the Tribunal may admit an appeal or permit filing of memorandum of cross- objections after expiry of relevant period, if it is satisfied that there was a sufficient cause for not presenting it within that period. This expression sufficient cause A.Y.2008-09 3 employed in the section has also been used identically in sub- section

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

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.

253 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as Act) before this Tribunal as and by way of second appeal. The assessee is aggrieved by the order bearing No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1064403518 (1) dated 26.04.2024 passed by ld. CIT(A) under Section 250 of the Act which is hereinafter referred to as the ‘impugned order

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.

253 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as Act) before this Tribunal as and by way of second appeal. The assessee is aggrieved by the order bearing No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1064403518 (1) dated 26.04.2024 passed by ld. CIT(A) under Section 250 of the Act which is hereinafter referred to as the ‘impugned order

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.

253 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as Act) before this Tribunal as and by way of second appeal. The assessee is aggrieved by the order bearing No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1064403518 (1) dated 26.04.2024 passed by ld. CIT(A) under Section 250 of the Act which is hereinafter referred to as the ‘impugned order

ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUDHIANA vs. M/S MRS.BECTORS FOOD SPECILTIES LTD, LUDHIANA

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

253 (SO and judgment of this Court in CIT v. Abhishek Industries Ltd. (2006) 205 CTR (P&H) 304 : (2006) 286 ITR 1 (P&H). The CIT(A) allowed the appeal of the assessee holding that the subsidy was for setting up of industrial unit in backward area of Haryana and same has to be treated as capital receipt

ACIT, LUDHIANA vs. M/S MRS. BECTORS FOOD SPECIALTIES PVT. LTD., LUDHIANA

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

253 (SO and judgment of this Court in CIT v. Abhishek Industries Ltd. (2006) 205 CTR (P&H) 304 : (2006) 286 ITR 1 (P&H). The CIT(A) allowed the appeal of the assessee holding that the subsidy was for setting up of industrial unit in backward area of Haryana and same has to be treated as capital receipt

ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUDHIANA vs. M/S MRS.BECTORS FOOD SPECILTIES LTD, LUDHIANA

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

253 (SO and judgment of this Court in CIT v. Abhishek Industries Ltd. (2006) 205 CTR (P&H) 304 : (2006) 286 ITR 1 (P&H). The CIT(A) allowed the appeal of the assessee holding that the subsidy was for setting up of industrial unit in backward area of Haryana and same has to be treated as capital receipt

ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUDHIANA vs. M/S MRS.BECTORS FOOD SPECILTIES LTD, LUDHIANA

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

253 (SO and judgment of this Court in CIT v. Abhishek Industries Ltd. (2006) 205 CTR (P&H) 304 : (2006) 286 ITR 1 (P&H). The CIT(A) allowed the appeal of the assessee holding that the subsidy was for setting up of industrial unit in backward area of Haryana and same has to be treated as capital receipt

ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUDHIANA vs. M/S MRS.BECTORS FOOD SPECILTIES LTD, LUDHIANA

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

253 (SO and judgment of this Court in CIT v. Abhishek Industries Ltd. (2006) 205 CTR (P&H) 304 : (2006) 286 ITR 1 (P&H). The CIT(A) allowed the appeal of the assessee holding that the subsidy was for setting up of industrial unit in backward area of Haryana and same has to be treated as capital receipt

ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUDHIANA vs. M/S MRS.BECTORS FOOD SPECILTIES LTD, LUDHIANA

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

253 (SO and judgment of this Court in CIT v. Abhishek Industries Ltd. (2006) 205 CTR (P&H) 304 : (2006) 286 ITR 1 (P&H). The CIT(A) allowed the appeal of the assessee holding that the subsidy was for setting up of industrial unit in backward area of Haryana and same has to be treated as capital receipt