SHRI ABHISHEK SOIN,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-II, LUDHIANA

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 321 & 322/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11, 2011-12 Shri Abhishek Soin, The Dcit, C/O Sigma Cartons Pvt. Ltd., Vs Central Circle-Ii, Unit-Ii, Industrial Area-C, Ludhiana. Sua Road, Ludhiana. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Anbps9446A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Aditya Kumar, Ca Revenue By : Shri Manav Bansal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 03.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.07.2025 Hybrid Hearing O R D E R

153D was not set aside. Therefore, no fresh approval was required to be taken by the AO. To our mind, if this judgement is applied on the facts of present case, then it would come out that approval granted by the CIT in the assessment order framed on 31.03.2015 was not disturbed by the CIT while exercising powers under Section

SHRI ABHISHEK SOIN,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-II, LUDHIANA

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 321 & 322/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11, 2011-12 Shri Abhishek Soin, The Dcit, C/O Sigma Cartons Pvt. Ltd., Vs Central Circle-Ii, Unit-Ii, Industrial Area-C, Ludhiana. Sua Road, Ludhiana. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Anbps9446A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Aditya Kumar, Ca Revenue By : Shri Manav Bansal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 03.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.07.2025 Hybrid Hearing O R D E R

153D was not set aside. Therefore, no fresh approval was required to be taken by the AO. To our mind, if this judgement is applied on the facts of present case, then it would come out that approval granted by the CIT in the assessment order framed on 31.03.2015 was not disturbed by the CIT while exercising powers under Section

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

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

153D was not set aside. Therefore, no fresh\napproval was required to be taken by the AO. To our mind,\nif this judgement is applied on the facts of present case,\nthen it would come out that approval granted by the CIT in\nthe assessment order framed on 31.03.2015 was not\ndisturbed by the CIT while exercising powers under Section

DAMANDEEP KAUR,MOHALI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL CIRCLE-2), CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed

153D of the Act,\nindicating a lack of due application of mind.\n3.\nA search and seizure action u/s 132(1) was carried out on 03.10.2019 in the\nChandigarh Group of Colleges group. The assessee, an individual and trustee in\nChandigarh Educational Trust and Shri Guru Ram Dass Educational Society, was\ncovered. Pursuant thereto, notices u/s 153A were issued

DAMANDEEP KAUR,MOHALI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL CIRCLE-2), CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed

153D of the Act,\nindicating a lack of due application of mind.\n\n3.\nA search and seizure action u/s 132(1) was carried out on 03.10.2019 in the\nChandigarh Group of Colleges group. The assessee, an individual and trustee in\nChandigarh Educational Trust and Shri Guru Ram Dass Educational Society, was\ncovered. Pursuant thereto, notices u/s 153A were issued

DAMANDEEP KAUR,MOHALI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL CIRCLE-2), CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed

153D of the Act,\nindicating a lack of due application of mind.\n3.\nA search and seizure action u/s 132(1) was carried out on 03.10.2019 in the\nChandigarh Group of Colleges group. The assessee, an individual and trustee in\nChandigarh Educational Trust and Shri Guru Ram Dass Educational Society, was\ncovered. Pursuant thereto, notices u/s 153A were issued

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, LUDHIANA vs. AB ALCOBEV PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, appeals of Revenue are dismissed, Cross\nObjections of the assessee for

section 153C in the case of the assessee after duly\nrecording satisfaction that the seized documents belonged to the assessee and represented its\nundisclosed 11 income. In the absence of such compliance, the assessment so framed is without\njurisdiction and liable to be quashed.\n6. The Assessing Officer has relied upon various documents and digital data seized during\nthe search

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, LUDHIANA vs. AB ALCOBEV PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, appeals of Revenue are dismissed, Cross\nObjections of the assessee for

section 153C in the case of the assessee after duly\nrecording satisfaction that the seized documents belonged to the assessee and represented its\nundisclosed 11 income. In the absence of such compliance, the assessment so framed is without\njurisdiction and liable to be quashed.\n6. The Assessing Officer has relied upon various documents and digital data seized during\nthe search

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA vs. AB ALCOBEV PRIVATE LIMITED , DELHI

In the result, appeals of Revenue are dismissed, Cross\nObjections of the assessee for

section 153C in the case of the assessee after duly\nrecording satisfaction that the seized documents belonged to the assessee and represented its\nundisclosed 11 income. In the absence of such compliance, the assessment so framed is without\njurisdiction and liable to be quashed.\n6. The Assessing Officer has relied upon various documents and digital data seized during\nthe search

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, LUDHIANA , LUDHIANA vs. AB ALCOBEV PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, appeals of Revenue are dismissed, Cross\nObjections of the assessee for

section 153C in the case of the assessee after duly\nrecording satisfaction that the seized documents belonged to the assessee and represented its\nundisclosed 11 income. In the absence of such compliance, the assessment so framed is without\njurisdiction and liable to be quashed.\n6. The Assessing Officer has relied upon various documents and digital data seized during\nthe search

SH. DINESH SOIN,LUDHIANA vs. ACIT, LUDHIANA

The appeals are partly allowed

153D\nwas not set aside. Therefore, no fresh approval was required\nto be taken by the AO. To our mind, if this judgement is\napplied on the facts of present case, then it would come out\nthat approval granted by the CIT in the assessment order\nframed on 31.03.2015 was not disturbed by the CIT while\nexercising powers under Section

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

The appeals are partly allowed

153D\nwas not set aside. Therefore, no fresh approval was required\nto be taken by the AO. To our mind, if this judgement is\napplied on the facts of present case, then it would come out\nthat approval granted by the CIT in the assessment order\nframed on 31.03.2015 was not disturbed by the CIT while\nexercising powers under Section

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

The appeals are partly allowed

153D\nwas not set aside. Therefore, no fresh approval was required\nto be taken by the AO. To our mind, if this judgement is\napplied on the facts of present case, then it would come out\nthat approval granted by the CIT in the assessment order\nframed on 31.03.2015 was not disturbed by the CIT while\nexercising powers under Section

MAXPORT INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

153D.\n4. Since common a nd identical issues are involved i n most of the\ncaptioned appeals, hence we deem it appropriate to adjudicate the\nmatter issue wise for the sake of brevity and clarity.\nIssue 1: No incriminating Material found during the course of search action, hence no\naddition can be made in the cases in which assessment

SCOTT EDIL ADVANCE RESEARCH LABORATORIES AND EDUCATION LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH

153D.\n4. Since common a nd ident ical issues are involved i n most of the\ncaptioned appeals, hence we deem it appropriate to adjudicate the\nmatter issue wise for the sake of brevity and clarity.\nIssue 1: No incriminating Material found during the course of search action, hence no\naddition can be made in the cases in which assessment

M/S LUXMI BUILDERS,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the respective appeals and stay applications are disposed off in light of aforesaid directions

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

153D of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 10. Being aggrieved, the assessee firm carried the matter in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). 10.1 During the appellate proceedings, it was submitted that the assessee firm is a partnership firm which was constituted in F.Y 2010-11. It was engaged in real estate development activity wherein it had purchased a large

M/S GANESH BUILDERS,PANCHKULA vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the respective appeals and stay applications are disposed off in light of aforesaid directions

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

153D of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 10. Being aggrieved, the assessee firm carried the matter in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). 10.1 During the appellate proceedings, it was submitted that the assessee firm is a partnership firm which was constituted in F.Y 2010-11. It was engaged in real estate development activity wherein it had purchased a large

SANJEEV AGGARWAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH

153D.\n4. Since common and identical issues are involved in most of the\ncaptioned appeals, hence we deem it appropriate to adjudicate the\nmatter issue wise for the sake of brevity and clarity.\nIssue 1: No incriminating Material found during the course of search action, hence no\naddition can be made in the cases in which assessment on the date