DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHANDIGARH vs. WINSOME TEXTILE INDUSTRIES LTD, CHANDIGARH

68 Income Tax Act, 1961 are without\nany basis and on the reliance of SEBI investigation of the lead manager to the\nissue, the SEBI report was also available on record as shown to the Authorised\nRepresentative of the assessee before the issue of the first notice of\nreassessment on 26.03.2017. As such, the assessment framed in respect of both

SOCIETY FOR EDUCATION AND RESEARCH,JAGADHRI, YAMUNANGAR vs. DCIT(E) (CIRCLE-2), CHANDIGARH

In the result, ground no. 2 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed

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

68 of the Act and as against the returned income of NIL, the reassessed income was determined at Rs. 34,50,350/-. 5. Being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who has since sustained the said findings and the appeal of the assessee has been dismissed. Against the said order, the assessee

DCIT,CIRCLE-1(EXEMPTION), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S INDO GLOBAL EDUCATION FOUNDATION, KHARAR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 26/Chd/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 The Dcit, M/S Indo Global बनाम Circle-1(Exemptions), Education Foundation, Chandigarh Vill. Abhipur, Vs. Sub Tehsil Majra, Tehsil Kharar, Punjab "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aaati2838L अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

68,00,000/- 2. Swami Vivekananda Educational & Rs. 60,00,000/- Charitable Trust 3. Chaman Educational & Charitable Trust Rs. 3,40,000/- 5. The undisputed facts are that the voluntary contribution have been given and accepted as corpus by the Donor as well as Donee trust and necessary confirmations, both from the Donor and Donees have been submitted

SH. MAHESH CHUGH,CHANDIGARH vs. PR.CIT-2, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

68,979 (19,33,202-3,64,223) Claim of Assessee in his computation : 15.01,269 Difference : 67,710 (assessee may correct the figure) (B) Investment in resl. Property (3113) taken at Rs. 2,17,35,000 (without renovation claim of 10,15,000) Deduction eligibility : 2,17,35,000x2,04,51,233/2

ACIT, CC-2, CHANDIGARH vs. SHRI KARAJ SINGH, YAMUNA NAGAR

In the result, the revenue’s appeal ITA No

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 726/Chandi/2022 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Acit-Central Circle 2 Shri Karaj Singh बनाम/ Cr Building Sector 17 H. No 1379, Modern Colony, Near Iti Vs. Chandigarh 160017 Yamuna Nagar (Haryana) "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Atups-5528-A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & 2. Co. No. 16/Chandi/2024 [In Ita No. 726/Chandi/2022 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Shri Karaj Singh Acit-Central Circle 2 बनाम/ H. No 1379, Modern Colony, Near Iti, Cr Building Sector 17 Vs. Yamuna Nagar (Haryana) Chandigarh 160017 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Atups-5528-A (Cross-Objector) : (Respondent) Revenue By : Smt. Kusum Bansal (Cit) – Ld. Dr Assessee By : Shri Dhruv Goel (Ca) - Ld. Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18-09-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 08/10/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1.1 Aforesaid Appeal By Revenue For Assessment Year (Ay) 2018-19 Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 3, Gurgaon [Cit(A)] Dated 26-09-2022 In The Matter Of An Assessment

Section 143(3) of the Act deserve to be quashed as such. 6. That the authorities below have erred in making/confirming additions without providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee and without adhering to the principles of natural justice. 7. The assessee craves leave to add, amend, alter, substitute or revise any of the above-mentioned grounds

M/S AJAY KUMAR SOOD ENGINEERS & CONTRACTORS,SHIMLA vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

The appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

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

68,805/- as unexplained expenditure. A.Y. 2008-09 relates to addition of Rs. 5,28,126/- as unexplained expenditure. A.Y. 2009-10 relates to addition of Rs. 8,70,269/- as unexplained expenditure. Ground No. 4 for the A.Y. 2011-12 relates to addition of Rs. 24,90,000/- as unexplained expenditure. 10.1 During the course of search and seizure

M/S AJAY KUMAR SOOD ENGINEERS & CONTRACTORS,SHIMLA vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

The appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

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

68,805/- as unexplained expenditure. A.Y. 2008-09 relates to addition of Rs. 5,28,126/- as unexplained expenditure. A.Y. 2009-10 relates to addition of Rs. 8,70,269/- as unexplained expenditure. Ground No. 4 for the A.Y. 2011-12 relates to addition of Rs. 24,90,000/- as unexplained expenditure. 10.1 During the course of search and seizure

M/S AJAY KUMAR SOOD ENGINEERS & CONTRACTORS,SHIMLA vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

The appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

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

68,805/- as unexplained expenditure. A.Y. 2008-09 relates to addition of Rs. 5,28,126/- as unexplained expenditure. A.Y. 2009-10 relates to addition of Rs. 8,70,269/- as unexplained expenditure. Ground No. 4 for the A.Y. 2011-12 relates to addition of Rs. 24,90,000/- as unexplained expenditure. 10.1 During the course of search and seizure

M/S AJAY KUMAR SOOD ENGINEERS & CONTRACTORS,SHIMLA vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

The appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

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

68,805/- as unexplained expenditure. A.Y. 2008-09 relates to addition of Rs. 5,28,126/- as unexplained expenditure. A.Y. 2009-10 relates to addition of Rs. 8,70,269/- as unexplained expenditure. Ground No. 4 for the A.Y. 2011-12 relates to addition of Rs. 24,90,000/- as unexplained expenditure. 10.1 During the course of search and seizure

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. M/S AJAY KUMAR SOOD ENGINEERS AND CONTRACTORS, SHIMLA

The appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

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

68,805/- as unexplained expenditure. A.Y. 2008-09 relates to addition of Rs. 5,28,126/- as unexplained expenditure. A.Y. 2009-10 relates to addition of Rs. 8,70,269/- as unexplained expenditure. Ground No. 4 for the A.Y. 2011-12 relates to addition of Rs. 24,90,000/- as unexplained expenditure. 10.1 During the course of search and seizure

SH. AJAY GOEL,SHIMLA vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

The appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

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

68,805/- as unexplained expenditure. A.Y. 2008-09 relates to addition of Rs. 5,28,126/- as unexplained expenditure. A.Y. 2009-10 relates to addition of Rs. 8,70,269/- as unexplained expenditure. Ground No. 4 for the A.Y. 2011-12 relates to addition of Rs. 24,90,000/- as unexplained expenditure. 10.1 During the course of search and seizure

M/S AJAY KUMAR SOOD ENGINEERS & CONTRACTORS,SHIMLA vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

The appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

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

68,805/- as unexplained expenditure. A.Y. 2008-09 relates to addition of Rs. 5,28,126/- as unexplained expenditure. A.Y. 2009-10 relates to addition of Rs. 8,70,269/- as unexplained expenditure. Ground No. 4 for the A.Y. 2011-12 relates to addition of Rs. 24,90,000/- as unexplained expenditure. 10.1 During the course of search and seizure

M/S AJAY KUMAR SOOD ENGINEERS & CONTRACTORS,SHIMLA vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

The appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

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

68,805/- as unexplained expenditure. A.Y. 2008-09 relates to addition of Rs. 5,28,126/- as unexplained expenditure. A.Y. 2009-10 relates to addition of Rs. 8,70,269/- as unexplained expenditure. Ground No. 4 for the A.Y. 2011-12 relates to addition of Rs. 24,90,000/- as unexplained expenditure. 10.1 During the course of search and seizure

SH. AMAR SINGH,JAGADHARI vs. ITO, YAMUNANAGAR

In the result, both the appeal of different assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

68,000/- in cash, Rs. 16,77,625/- by cheque dated 15.03.2007 and Rs. 1,74,55,250/- by cheque from M/s Stepping Stone Buildhome Pvt. Ltd. Jaipur. The proceeds of the aforesaid cheques were realized by assessee in March, 2007 and August, 2008 respectively. The assessee offered the part sale consideration of Rs. 17,45,625/- for capital gains

SH. JAI RAM,JAGADHARI vs. ITO, YAMUNANAGAR

In the result, both the appeal of different assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

68,000/- in cash, Rs. 16,77,625/- by cheque dated 15.03.2007 and Rs. 1,74,55,250/- by cheque from M/s Stepping Stone Buildhome Pvt. Ltd. Jaipur. The proceeds of the aforesaid cheques were realized by assessee in March, 2007 and August, 2008 respectively. The assessee offered the part sale consideration of Rs. 17,45,625/- for capital gains

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

68,12,403/-. After claiming pre-paid taxes @ Rs.9,92,59,948/- which included TDS and advance taxes, refund of Rs.24,47,550/- was claimed by the assessee. The assessment in this case was completed by the Assessing officer making various additions to the income of the assessee which was deleted in appeals upto the ITAT, thus, restoring the assessed

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

68,12,403/-. After claiming pre-paid taxes @ Rs.9,92,59,948/- which included TDS and advance taxes, refund of Rs.24,47,550/- was claimed by the assessee. The assessment in this case was completed by the Assessing officer making various additions to the income of the assessee which was deleted in appeals upto the ITAT, thus, restoring the assessed

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

68,12,403/-. After claiming pre-paid taxes @ Rs.9,92,59,948/- which included TDS and advance taxes, refund of Rs.24,47,550/- was claimed by the assessee. The assessment in this case was completed by the Assessing officer making various additions to the income of the assessee which was deleted in appeals upto the ITAT, thus, restoring the assessed

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. CHANDIGARH HOUSING BOARD, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

269/- interest earned on RGCTP project kept in FDR’s in escrow account. 3. The said addition was upheld by the Ld.CIT(A). Thereafter penalty proceedings were initiated and after giving due opportunity of hearing to the assessee and considering the replies filed by it, the AO held that it was a clear case of concealment of particulars of income