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

section 69C mentioned on page no.29 & 76 of A-11 page no. 61 of A-15. 15.2 Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition holding as under: “It is undisputed that diaries were found in the course of search, admitted by the Shri Sanjay Kumar Sood, partner of the assessee-firm, to be in his handwriting and pertaining to business expenses

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

section 69C mentioned on page no.29 & 76 of A-11 page no. 61 of A-15. 15.2 Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition holding as under: “It is undisputed that diaries were found in the course of search, admitted by the Shri Sanjay Kumar Sood, partner of the assessee-firm, to be in his handwriting and pertaining to business expenses

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

section 69C mentioned on page no.29 & 76 of A-11 page no. 61 of A-15. 15.2 Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition holding as under: “It is undisputed that diaries were found in the course of search, admitted by the Shri Sanjay Kumar Sood, partner of the assessee-firm, to be in his handwriting and pertaining to business expenses

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

section 69C mentioned on page no.29 & 76 of A-11 page no. 61 of A-15. 15.2 Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition holding as under: “It is undisputed that diaries were found in the course of search, admitted by the Shri Sanjay Kumar Sood, partner of the assessee-firm, to be in his handwriting and pertaining to business expenses

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

section 69C mentioned on page no.29 & 76 of A-11 page no. 61 of A-15. 15.2 Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition holding as under: “It is undisputed that diaries were found in the course of search, admitted by the Shri Sanjay Kumar Sood, partner of the assessee-firm, to be in his handwriting and pertaining to business expenses

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

section 69C mentioned on page no.29 & 76 of A-11 page no. 61 of A-15. 15.2 Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition holding as under: “It is undisputed that diaries were found in the course of search, admitted by the Shri Sanjay Kumar Sood, partner of the assessee-firm, to be in his handwriting and pertaining to business expenses

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)

69C or section 69D, if such income is not covered under clause (a), The income tax payable shall be the aggregate of- i. the amount of income tax calculated on the income referred to in clause (a) and clause (b), at the rate of sixty per cent; and ii. the amount of income tax with which the assessee would have

AMAN THUKRAL,LUDHIANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(1), LUDHIANA , LUDHIANA

Accordingly, Additional Ground No. 1 is allowed for statistical

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

69C of the Act. 42. The contention of the assessee is that the differences arose due to commercial disputes with the said parties during the relevant financial year and that the parties had allegedly recorded excess sales in their books. It has further been submitted that the assessee had not claimed any GST input tax credit in respect

ASTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, LUDHIANA, AAYAKAR BHAWAN vs. WARYAM STEEL CASTING PRIVATE LIMITED, KANGANWAL ROAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and the Cross appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

section 69C. Principal Commissioner of Income-tax v. Jagdish Thakkar [2022] 145 taxmann.com 414 (Bombay). (vi) Where in order to establish genuineness of purchase transactions, assessee broughton record name and address of parties, their PAN, TDS

WARYAM STEEL CASTINGS PRIVATE LIMITED,LUDHIANA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and the Cross appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

section 69C. Principal Commissioner of Income-tax v. Jagdish Thakkar [2022] 145 taxmann.com 414 (Bombay). (vi) Where in order to establish genuineness of purchase transactions, assessee broughton record name and address of parties, their PAN, TDS

KALATTAR SINGH,AMBALA vs. CIT(APPEALS), NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI. SANJAY GARG (Judicial Member), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

69C of the Act and brought to tax as per provisions of Section 115BBE of the Act. 3. Being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). 4. On behalf of the assessee, it was submitted before the Ld. CIT(A) that the assessee is a Proprietor of M/s Radha Swami Traders, doing business

M/S SEL MANUFACTURING CO. LTD.,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-3, LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal is allowed

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

69C. 3. That he further gravely erred in making an addition of Rs. 16,27,714/- representing 2% of alleged bogus purchase of Rs. 8,13,85,737/-. 2. The following Additional Ground has also been raised: “That the order dated 29.12.2018 passed under section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the learned Commissioner of Income

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)

69C and further addition of Rs. 36,65,528/- is added being the interest on unsecured loan debited to profit & loss account disallowed under section 37(1) of the Act. 10.1 Be that as it may, be it noted that above consequential order was passed while the present appeal was pending. The part of the order under section 263 wherein

SCOTT EDIL PHARMACIA LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH

section 158BD calling upon assessee to file return of undisclosed income\nfor block period 1-4-1989 to 28-1-2000 - Thereafter, valuation of cost of construction of\nbuildings constructed by assessee-firm was referred to DVO, for valuation under section\n133(6) - Assessing Officer added difference in valuation of cost of construction adopted\nby assessee-firm

SHRI BALRAM KRISHAN,CHANDIGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

Section 69B of the Act. In absence of any other material on\nrecord, addition was correctly deleted. Tax Appeal is, therefore, dismissed.”\n11. A perusal of the above judgments would indicate that mere valuation report is not\nsufficient to conclude that the assessee has made unexplained investment. From perusal\nof the assessment, nowhere it reveals that inspite of search, Revenue

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

section 158BD calling upon assessee to file return of undisclosed income\nfor block period 1-4-1989 to 28-1-2000 - Thereafter, valuation of cost of construction of\nbuildings constructed by assessee-firm was referred to DVO, for valuation under section\n133(6) - Assessing Officer added difference in valuation of cost of construction adopted\nby assessee-firm

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

69C in the absence of corroborative evidence. The Revenue failed to establish\nthat the assessee incurred unrecorded expenses. Considering the above facts and settled\nlegal position, we hold that the addition made by the AO and sustained by the CIT(A)\nbased solely on the DVO’s valuation is not justified and the same is accordingly ordered\nto be deleted

SCOTT EDIL PHARMACIA LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH

section 158BD calling upon assessee to file return of undisclosed income\nfor block period 1-4-1989 to 28-1-2000 - Thereafter, valuation of cost of construction of\nbuildings constructed by assessee-firm was referred to DVO, for valuation under section\n133(6) - Assessing Officer added difference in valuation of cost of construction adopted\nby assessee-firm