WINDLAS JEWELLERS,AMBALA, HARYANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, AMBALA, AMBALA, HARYANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

demonetized currency which was deposited in the bank account of the assessee. However, the case of the assessee is that the assessee has made genuine sales and that the sales were duly recorded in the books of account and books of account were duly audited and that the deposits in the bank account were made out of cash sales

KAUR SAIN SPINNING MILLS,LUDHIANA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

purchasers. The appellant has not given any documentary evidences to prove this. It furnished only trading of bills with no actual purchase/sale transactions between the M/s. B.S.Traders and M/s. Kaur Sain Spinning Mills, therefore the nature of transaction with M/s B.S. Traders are held to be bogus purchase/sale transactions. I do not find any justification to interfere with the order

SWARN GANGA JEWELLERS,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 4(1) NOW DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: This Tribunal Being Aggrieved By An Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/1045180258(1) For A.Y. 2017-18 Dt. 05/09/2022 Which Is Hereinafter Referred To As The “Impugned Order”. The Impugned Order Is Passed By Cit(A) In Terms Of Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. Factual Matrix 2. That Survey U/S 133A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Was Conducted On The Business Premises Of The Assessee On 06/09/2016. The Assessee Surrendered A Sum Of Rs. 50,00,000/- During The Survey & Paid Tax Thereon. The Return Of Income Was Filed On 01/11/2017 Declaring A Total Income Of Rs. 89,48,260/-. Thereafter The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny Under Compulsory Scrutiny Guidelines & Notice Under Section 143(2) Of The Act Was Issued On 11/09/2018. The Assessment Was Finalised Vide Order Dt. 23/12/2019 Whereby Addition Of Rs. 95,70,882/- Was Made U/S 68 R.W..S 115Bbe Of The Act.

demonetized currency which was deposited in the bank account of the assessee. However, the case of the assessee is that the assessee has made genuine sales and that the sales were duly recorded in the books of account and books of account were duly audited and that the deposits in the bank account were made out of cash sales

ITO, WARD-2(1), LUDHIANA vs. SH. KAPIL AGGARWAL, LUDHIANA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vp & Shri. Krinwant Sahay, Am आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 365/Chd/ 2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 The Ito, बनाम Shri Kapil Aggarwal Ward-2(1), Prop. Hardik Ludhiana Corporation, Lgf-66 City Palace, Chauri Sarak, Ludhiana 141001 "ायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Acypk9080G अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ"/Respondent ( Physical Hearing )

demonetization period have been accepted by the VAT department and also by the Assessing Officer. Once the VAT department, which is concerned with the verification of sales, have accepted such sales, then under such circumstances, such sales cannot be doubted without bringing any adverse finding. The assessee has placed before 9 365-c-2023 – Kapil Aggarwal, Ludhiana us copy

GAURAV GOEL,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO, WARD 4(3), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Paresh M. Joshiआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 132/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Gaurav Goel, Vs. The Ito, बनाम H. No. 1676, Sector 33-D, Ward 4(3), Chandigarh Chandigarh "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Ahgpg3162Q अपीलाथ"/ Assessee ""यथ"/ Repsondent ( Physical Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Jaspal Sharma, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Vivek Vardhan, Jcit, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 17.12.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 24.02.2025 आदेश/Order Per Paresh M. Joshi, Jm :

purchaser was not mentioned and all the sale bills were below Rs. 2 lakhs. Further, notice u/s 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 20.12.2019 was issued to provide complete names & addresses (PAN also where cash sale was above Rs. 2 lacs) of persons to whom cash sale were made during the month of October, 2016 & November

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-I, LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA vs. TIRUPATI BALAJI EXIM PRIVATE LIMITED, LUDHIANA

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Krinwant Sahay

purchase and sale bills and copies of accounts of parties to whom cash sale have been made by the assessee during the period 01.04.2016 to 31.03.2017. The AO on perusal of the account of the assessee noticed that the assessee has deposited cash of Rs. 5,97,64,000/- in the SBI bank account bearing number 65048993034 during the demonetization

FASHION ZONE,LUDHIANA vs. JCIT, WARD III(2), LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

demonetization period. It was submitted that the books of accounts are duly audited and AO has accepted the book results and opening stock purchased and closing stock has not been doubted by the AO. It was submitted that the assessee has been regularly paying VAT and has maintained proper record of the sale bills and copy of the VAT returns

SANDEEP KUMAR SANSERWAL,YAMUNANAGAR vs. ITO WARD-4, YAMUNAGAR

In the result, the addition so made is hereby directed to be deleted

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

purchaser for verification and therefore the said deposit in the garb of cash sales was unexplained cash and such submission of the assessee was concocted. The AO also pointed out that the assessee admitted of not depositing cash in bank account during demonetization period from agricultural income. The AO thereafter held that the cash deposits during demonetization were made

DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S MOOL JI DIAMONDS, CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

demonetization and such deposits are on the higher side considering the past year figures cannot be basic to hold the explanation made by the assessee as unsustainable and trade this cash sale as bogus and bringing the cash deposit to Tax u/s 68 of the Act. The comparative figures for past years can no doubt provides a starting point

RAJEEV DUA PROP M/S RAM MILAP HOSIERY, LUDHIANA,PUNJAB vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(1), , LUDHIANA, PUNJAB

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Appeal Is Finally Heard Or Disposed Off.”

bogus. Therefore, we agree with the contention of the Ld. AR that where the cash sales duly offered to tax have been accepted, bringing the realization of sale proceeds in cash to tax will amount to double taxation and the same is clearly unsustainable in law and cannot be upheld. In view of the same, we find the explanation

BABITA JAIN,AMBALA CITY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER ,WARD -1 AMBALA, AMBALA CANTT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed as and by way of remand back to the file of Ld

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

demonetization since books of accounts are not rejected the order of Ld. CIT(A) who has since sustained the finding of Ld. AO should be set aside. The amount of Rs. 48,70,000/- was cash in hand on 08/11/2016 i.e; “accumulated sales” i.e; Name of parties, their PAN number, etc are not disclosed to the Department. Material particulars

GUJRANWALA JEWELS,AMBALA CITY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2, AMBALA CANTT

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Dr Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 700/Chd/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Gujranwala Jewels, Vs. The Ito, बनाम Ambala Whole Sale Cloth Ward-2, Market, Ambala Kalka Chowk, Ambala "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aapfg8259G अपीलाथ" ./ Appellant ""यथ" / Respondent ( Virtual Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Sh. Rohit Goel, C.A. राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 06.05.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 07.05.2024 आदेश/Order Per Dr. Krinwant Sahay, A.M.:

demonetization and nothing adverse is ever pointed out. 700-Chd-2023 – Gujranwala Jewels, Ambala City 5 h. Sales Tax department had accepted the Sales as per books of accounts for AY 2017-18 and copy of Assessment order was also placed. In fact, in this case purchases are not doubted and neither closing stock is doubted. Purchases, sales

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH vs. ATMA RAM JEWELLERS, CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

purchases were\nexaggerated or the sales were manipulated. The ld. AO\nhas placed a theory without any proof. The AO has not\nmade any enquiry on the material supplied by the\nassessee. AO has not brought out any evidence to show\nthat the sale bills are all bogus. AO has not rejected any\nbooks of account

SH. JAI PRAKASH,MORINDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(2), ROPAR

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed, with the following directions:

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member)

purchases, sales, or trading results. (ii) Pattern of sales and deposits consistent: The turnover for the year was Rs.2.78 crore with declared profit of Rs.5.61 lakh. The monthly sales and deposits were proportionate and in the same trend throughout the year. The AO accepted all cash deposits except those made during the demonetization period, despite the fact that business continued

DEEPIKA GARG, E-392, PHASE-VI, FOCAL POINT, LUDHIANA,LUDHIANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1), LUDHIANA, JAO, THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(5), LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY, AM Deepika Garg E-392, Phase-VI Focal Point, Ludhiana स्थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: ACAPG4693H अपीलार्थी/Appellant आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 96/Chd/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2017-18 बनाम The ITO Ward-1(5), Ludhiana प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by : Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 29/07/2025 उदघोषणा की तारीख / D

purchases made by them from the assessee's Proprietary concern and the written submissions as filed in detail have not been considered properly by the Ld. CIT(A). That the Ld. CIT(A) has also grossly erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 4. 24 Lacs particularly, when the sales made to some parties have been accepted by the Assessing

SHER SINGH,PALAMPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, PALAMPUR

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

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

purchasing the wrist-watches, that is to say, Rs. 87,455 was correct and proper for the assessment year under reference. In this connection, section 69A may usefully be set out as follows : "69A. Unexplained money, etc.—Where in any financial year the assessee is found to be the owner of any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article