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 Grounds: Legal grounds Ground 1: That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the impugned order passes by the Ld. AO is barred by limitation in terms of section 153(1)/(4) and therefore, is liable to be quashed. Ground 2: Based on the facts and circumstances of the present case

KAKA SINGH ALIAS GULJAR SINGH,PATIALA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , PATIALA

270A for\nunder-reporting of income.\n7. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Ld. Assessing Officer the\nassessee preferred the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC. The Ld. CIT(A)\nconsidered the assessment order, the written submissions of the assessee, and\nthe material available on record. At the outset, the Ld. CIT(A) observed that\nthe Assessing

KAPIL GUPTA,SIRMAUR vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE SHIMLA, SHIMLA

The appeals stand partly allowed in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1010/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21) & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1011/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22) 3. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1012/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23) & 4. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1013/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2023-24) Shri Kapil Gupta Acit (Central) C/O M/S Himgiri Beverages बनाम/ Vs. Shimla (Hp) -171001 Kala Amb – 173030 (Hp) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Addpg-0399-Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Ajay Jain (Ca) A/W Sh. Lovesh Bansal (Ca) – Ld. Ars ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Smt. Kusum Bansal (Cit) & Shri Rajat Kumar Kureel (Cit) – Ld. Drs Date Of Final Hearing : 27-01-2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-01-2026 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeals By Assessee For Assessment Years (Ay) 2020-21 To 2023-24 Arises Out Of Separate Orders Of Learned First

section 270A, 271AAC, 271A, 271B, 271AAD As is evident, the assessee has assailed the legality of assessment proceedings and also assailed various quantum additions on merits. 2. The Ld. AR made vehement arguments qua grounds of appeal and filed written submissions along with supporting case laws and computations. The Ld. CIT-DRs also advanced arguments and supported the orders

KAPIL GUPTA,SIRMAUR vs. ACIT CENTRAL SHIMLA, SHIMLA

The appeals stand partly allowed in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1010/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21) & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1011/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22) 3. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1012/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23) & 4. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1013/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2023-24) Shri Kapil Gupta Acit (Central) C/O M/S Himgiri Beverages बनाम/ Vs. Shimla (Hp) -171001 Kala Amb – 173030 (Hp) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Addpg-0399-Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Ajay Jain (Ca) A/W Sh. Lovesh Bansal (Ca) – Ld. Ars ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Smt. Kusum Bansal (Cit) & Shri Rajat Kumar Kureel (Cit) – Ld. Drs Date Of Final Hearing : 27-01-2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-01-2026 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeals By Assessee For Assessment Years (Ay) 2020-21 To 2023-24 Arises Out Of Separate Orders Of Learned First

section 270A, 271AAC, 271A, 271B, 271AAD As is evident, the assessee has assailed the legality of assessment proceedings and also assailed various quantum additions on merits. 2. The Ld. AR made vehement arguments qua grounds of appeal and filed written submissions along with supporting case laws and computations. The Ld. CIT-DRs also advanced arguments and supported the orders

KAPIL GUPTA,SIRMAUR vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE SHIMLA, SHIMLA

The appeals stand partly allowed in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1010/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21) & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1011/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22) 3. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1012/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23) & 4. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1013/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2023-24) Shri Kapil Gupta Acit (Central) C/O M/S Himgiri Beverages बनाम/ Vs. Shimla (Hp) -171001 Kala Amb – 173030 (Hp) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Addpg-0399-Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Ajay Jain (Ca) A/W Sh. Lovesh Bansal (Ca) – Ld. Ars ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Smt. Kusum Bansal (Cit) & Shri Rajat Kumar Kureel (Cit) – Ld. Drs Date Of Final Hearing : 27-01-2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-01-2026 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeals By Assessee For Assessment Years (Ay) 2020-21 To 2023-24 Arises Out Of Separate Orders Of Learned First

section 270A, 271AAC, 271A, 271B, 271AAD As is evident, the assessee has assailed the legality of assessment proceedings and also assailed various quantum additions on merits. 2. The Ld. AR made vehement arguments qua grounds of appeal and filed written submissions along with supporting case laws and computations. The Ld. CIT-DRs also advanced arguments and supported the orders

KAPIL GUPTA,SIRMAUR vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE SHIMLA, SHIMLA

The appeals stand partly allowed in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1010/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21) & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1011/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22) 3. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1012/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23) & 4. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1013/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2023-24) Shri Kapil Gupta Acit (Central) C/O M/S Himgiri Beverages बनाम/ Vs. Shimla (Hp) -171001 Kala Amb – 173030 (Hp) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Addpg-0399-Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Ajay Jain (Ca) A/W Sh. Lovesh Bansal (Ca) – Ld. Ars ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Smt. Kusum Bansal (Cit) & Shri Rajat Kumar Kureel (Cit) – Ld. Drs Date Of Final Hearing : 27-01-2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-01-2026 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeals By Assessee For Assessment Years (Ay) 2020-21 To 2023-24 Arises Out Of Separate Orders Of Learned First

section 270A, 271AAC, 271A, 271B, 271AAD As is evident, the assessee has assailed the legality of assessment proceedings and also assailed various quantum additions on merits. 2. The Ld. AR made vehement arguments qua grounds of appeal and filed written submissions along with supporting case laws and computations. The Ld. CIT-DRs also advanced arguments and supported the orders

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(5), CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH vs. AVTAR SINGH, VILLAGE- KAIMBWALA

270A for\nunder-reporting of income.\n7.\nFeeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Ld. Assessing Officer the\nassessee preferred the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC. The Ld. CIT(A)\nconsidered the assessment order, the written submissions of the assessee, and\nthe material available on record. At the outset, the Ld. CIT(A) observed that\nthe Assessing

INCOME TAX OFFICER, INCOME TAX OFFICE BARNALA vs. LAKHVIR SINGH, GRAIN MARKET, BARNALA

270A for\nunder-reporting of income.\n7.\nFeeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Ld. Assessing Officer the\nassessee preferred the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC. The Ld. CIT(A)\nconsidered the assessment order, the written submissions of the assessee, and\nthe material available on record. At the outset, the Ld. CIT(A) observed that\nthe Assessing

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)

price in consideration of immediate payment or payment within the stipulated period.” 17.3 This income has been shown as part of “profit and gain of business” and that the same has been accepted as such in past years too. There is no dispute that it is not a “business income” nor the same has been assessed as “income from other

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)

price in consideration of immediate payment or payment within the stipulated period.” 17.3 This income has been shown as part of “profit and gain of business” and that the same has been accepted as such in past years too. There is no dispute that it is not a “business income” nor the same has been assessed as “income from other

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)

price in consideration of immediate payment or payment within the stipulated period.” 17.3 This income has been shown as part of “profit and gain of business” and that the same has been accepted as such in past years too. There is no dispute that it is not a “business income” nor the same has been assessed as “income from other

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)

price in consideration of immediate payment or payment within the stipulated period.” 17.3 This income has been shown as part of “profit and gain of business” and that the same has been accepted as such in past years too. There is no dispute that it is not a “business income” nor the same has been assessed as “income from other

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)

price in consideration of immediate payment or payment within the stipulated period.” 17.3 This income has been shown as part of “profit and gain of business” and that the same has been accepted as such in past years too. There is no dispute that it is not a “business income” nor the same has been assessed as “income from other

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)

price in consideration of immediate payment or payment within the stipulated period.” 17.3 This income has been shown as part of “profit and gain of business” and that the same has been accepted as such in past years too. There is no dispute that it is not a “business income” nor the same has been assessed as “income from other

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)

price in consideration of immediate payment or payment within the stipulated period.” 17.3 This income has been shown as part of “profit and gain of business” and that the same has been accepted as such in past years too. There is no dispute that it is not a “business income” nor the same has been assessed as “income from other

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)

price in consideration of immediate payment or payment within the stipulated period.” 17.3 This income has been shown as part of “profit and gain of business” and that the same has been accepted as such in past years too. There is no dispute that it is not a “business income” nor the same has been assessed as “income from other

NARENDER KAUR,KURUKSHETRA, HARYANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1 , KURUKSHETRA

270A for\nunder-reporting of income.\n7.\nFeeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Ld. Assessing Officer the\nassessee preferred the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC. The Ld. CIT(A)\nconsidered the assessment order, the written submissions of the assessee, and\nthe material available on record. At the outset, the Ld. CIT(A) observed that\nthe Assessing

BALBIR KUMAR HUF,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO , CHANDIGARH

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

270A for under-reporting of income. 7. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Ld. Assessing Officer the assessee preferred the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC. The Ld. CIT(A) considered the assessment order, the written submissions of the assessee, and the material available on record. At the outset, the Ld. CIT(A) observed that the Assessing

INCOME TAX OFFICER, FATEHABAD vs. MAHESH NAGPAL, FATEHABAD

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

270A for under-reporting of income. 7. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Ld. Assessing Officer the assessee preferred the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC. The Ld. CIT(A) considered the assessment order, the written submissions of the assessee, and the material available on record. At the outset, the Ld. CIT(A) observed that the Assessing