M/S H.P.STATE FOREST COPRN. LTD.,SHIMLA vs. JCIT, S.R., SHIMLA

In the result, the present appeal of Appellant/Assessee is allowed and impugned order of Ld

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav& Shri Paresh M. Joshiआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.280& 281/Chd/2000 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years : 1990-91& 1991-92 M/S H.P. State Forest Corp. Ltd. Vs The Jcit, Van Nigam Kasumpti Shimla Shimla "ायीलेखासं./Pan No: Aaach4036L अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent िनधा"रतीक"ओरसे/Assessee By: Shri Y.K. Sud, Ca राज"वक"ओरसे/ Revenue By : Sh.Sarabjeet Singh, Cit-Dr सुनवाईक"तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28.05.2024 उदघोषणाक"तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 06.06.2024 Hybridhearing आदेश/Order Per Paresh M. Joshi, Jm: Both The Above Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee. Since The Issues Involved In Both The Above Appeals Are Common & Were Heard Together Therefore They Are Being Disposed Off By This Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Brevity. We Shall Take Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No. 280/Chd/2000 As A Lead Case.

253 being aggrieved by order dated 22.03.2000 passed by learned CIT(A) under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which is hereinafter referred to as the impugned order. Factual Matrix 3. The Assessee Corporation is owned and controlled by Govt. of Himachal Pradesh. 4. The Assessee Corporation deals in Forest Produce like Timber etc. for and on behalf

CENTRIENT PHARMACEUTICALS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNJAB vs. DCIT/ ACIT, CIRCLE 1(1), CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 1201/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22

Transfer Pricing Unit (Faceless) of the Income Tax Department for assessment year 2021-22. A.Y. 2021-22 2 2. Grounds of appeal taken by the assessee are as under: “Centrient Pharmaceutical India Private Limited ('Appellant') respectfully craves leave to prefer an appeal under section 253(1)(d

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

253 contemplates that the\nTribunal may admit an appeal or permit filing of memorandum\nof cross- objections after expiry of relevant period, if it is\nsatisfied that there was a sufficient cause for not presenting\nit within that period. This expression sufficient cause\nemployed in the section has also been used identically in sub-\nsection 3 of section

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

253 contemplates that the\nTribunal may admit an appeal or permit filing of memorandum\nof cross- objections after expiry of relevant period, if it is\nsatisfied that there was a sufficient cause for not presenting\nit within that period. This expression sufficient cause\nemployed in the section has also been used identically in sub-\nsection 3 of section

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

253 contemplates that the\nTribunal may admit an appeal or permit filing of memorandum\nof cross- objections after expiry of relevant period, if it is\nsatisfied that there was a sufficient cause for not presenting\nit within that period. This expression sufficient cause\nemployed in the section has also been used identically in sub-\nsection 3 of section

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

253 contemplates that the\nTribunal may admit an appeal or permit filing of memorandum\nof cross- objections after expiry of relevant period, if it is\nsatisfied that there was a sufficient cause for not presenting\nit within that period. This expression sufficient cause\nemployed in the section has also been used identically in sub-\nsection 3 of section

SMT. TEENA GARG,CHANDIGARH vs. PCIT, PANCHKULA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

253 of the\nIncome Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The\nAssessee is aggrieved by the order bearing number\nITBA/REV/F/REV5/2023-24/1063260786(1) dated 23/03/2024 passed\nby the Ld. PCIT under Section 263 of the Act which is hereinafter\nreferred to as the “impugned order”. The relevant A.Y. is 2015-16 and\nthe corresponding previous year period is from

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)

253(1)(c)(ii) in appeal has jurisdiction to determine its legality, validity and proprietary in a manner challenged before us, even after consequential order is passed; even if it is against the assessee partially in our considered view and that there is no embargo legally or otherwise. 10.2 The Ld. AR of the assessee has challenged the aforesaid

DCIT CIRCLE-4, LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA vs. ROCKMAN INDUSTRIES LTD, LUDHIANA

In the result order of CIT(A) is sustained as passed and the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

253 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as Act) before this Tribunal. The Revenue is aggrieved by the order bearing No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023- 24/1056753913(i) dt. 04/10/2023 dt. 04/10/2023 of Ld. CIT(A) which is hereinafter referred to as the “impugned order” . The impugned order is passed in the first appellate proceedings

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4,, AAYAKAR BHAWAN vs. ROCKMAN INDUSTRIES LIMITED, -

In the result order of CIT(A) is sustained as passed and the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

253 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as Act) before this Tribunal. The Revenue is aggrieved by the order bearing No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023- 24/1056753913(i) dt. 04/10/2023 dt. 04/10/2023 of Ld. CIT(A) which is hereinafter referred to as the “impugned order” . The impugned order is passed in the first appellate proceedings

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, AAYAKAR BHAWAN vs. ROCKMAN INDUSTRIES LIMITED, -

In the result order of CIT(A) is sustained as passed and the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

253 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as Act) before this Tribunal. The Revenue is aggrieved by the order bearing No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023- 24/1056753913(i) dt. 04/10/2023 dt. 04/10/2023 of Ld. CIT(A) which is hereinafter referred to as the “impugned order” . The impugned order is passed in the first appellate proceedings

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, LUDHIANA, AAYAKAR BHAWAN vs. ROCKMAN INDUSTRIES LIMITED, -

In the result order of CIT(A) is sustained as passed and the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

253 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as Act) before this Tribunal. The Revenue is aggrieved by the order bearing No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023- 24/1056753913(i) dt. 04/10/2023 dt. 04/10/2023 of Ld. CIT(A) which is hereinafter referred to as the “impugned order” . The impugned order is passed in the first appellate proceedings

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, , AAYAKAR BHAWAN vs. ROCKMAN INDUSTRIES LIMITED, -

In the result order of CIT(A) is sustained as passed and the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

253 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as Act) before this Tribunal. The Revenue is aggrieved by the order bearing No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023- 24/1056753913(i) dt. 04/10/2023 dt. 04/10/2023 of Ld. CIT(A) which is hereinafter referred to as the “impugned order” . The impugned order is passed in the first appellate proceedings

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, LUDHIANA, - vs. ROCKMAN INDUSTRIES LTD, -

In the result order of CIT(A) is sustained as passed and the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

253 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as Act) before this Tribunal. The Revenue is aggrieved by the order bearing No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023- 24/1056753913(i) dt. 04/10/2023 dt. 04/10/2023 of Ld. CIT(A) which is hereinafter referred to as the “impugned order” . The impugned order is passed in the first appellate proceedings

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, AAYAKAR BHAWAN vs. ROCKMAN INDUSTRIES LIMITED, -

In the result order of CIT(A) is sustained as passed and the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

253 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as Act) before this Tribunal. The Revenue is aggrieved by the order bearing No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023- 24/1056753913(i) dt. 04/10/2023 dt. 04/10/2023 of Ld. CIT(A) which is hereinafter referred to as the “impugned order” . The impugned order is passed in the first appellate proceedings

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AAYAKAR BHAWAN vs. ROCKMAN INDUSTRIES LIMITED, FOCAL POINT

In the result order of CIT(A) is sustained as passed and the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

253 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as Act) before this Tribunal. The Revenue is aggrieved by the order bearing No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023- 24/1056753913(i) dt. 04/10/2023 dt. 04/10/2023 of Ld. CIT(A) which is hereinafter referred to as the “impugned order” . The impugned order is passed in the first appellate proceedings

SHRI SATISH SOIN,LUDHIANA vs. ACIT, CC-II, LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 303/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Shri Satish Soin, बनाम The Acit, House No.31, Garden Enclave, Central Circle-2, Vs South City-Ii, Ludhiana. Ludhiana. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan /Tan No: Advps6254N अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Ashwani Kumar & Ms. Muskan Garg, Cas राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Smt. Kusum Bansal, Cit Dr तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 26.05.2025 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.07.2025 Hybrid Hearing आदेश/Order Per Rajpal Yadav, Vp

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 employed in the section has also been used identically in sub-section 3 of 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