DCIT, PATIALA vs. PRIME STEEL INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED, DIRBA

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed whereas, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 275/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2021-22 Prime Steel Industries Private Vs. The Dcit, बनाम Circle, Limited, Semi Industry, Patiala Plot No. 27, Anaj Mandi Dibra, Sangrur "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aagca3988E अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 500/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2021-22 The Dcit, Vs. Prime Steel Industries Private बनाम Circle, Limited, Semi Industry, Patiala Plot No. 27, Anaj Mandi Dibra, Sangrur "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aagca3988E अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent ( Physical Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate & Shri Viboore Garg, Ca राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Smt. Kusum Bansal, Cit Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 24.07.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20.09.2024

138, 'e-way bill' cannot be issued, if the registered person has not filed GST return for two consecutive two months and e-way bill cannot be issued if the GST Registration has been cancelled. 13. The Ld. Counsel of the assessee also stated that the GST Registration was valid at the time of generation of 'e-way bill

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)

bogus purchases. At the same time, given the discrepancies noted by the Assessing Officer during verification and the assessee's failure to furnish certain 886-CHD-2024 17 supporting evidence, such as bank statements and signed supplier confirmations, the possibility of purchases from the grey market cannot be ruled out. Further failure to produce the brokers and standard reply that

M/S SATWANT AGRO ENGINEERS,BHAWANIGARH vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, PATIALA

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

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

138 taxmann.com 335 (Hyderabad - Trib.) that "During course of scrutiny assessment proceedings, Assessing Officer observed that partners of assessee firm had introduced cash in form of capital and by way of loan from partners into firm, however, since source for amount introduced in firm as capital and loan was not properly explained, Assessing Officer added same in hands of assessee

SH. SANJAY SINGAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

Bench: S/Shri N.K. Saini, Vice- & Rajpal Yadav, Vice-

138,686,123 678,507,515 1,705,146,806 Aniket Singal A.Y. 2013-14 A.Y. 2014-15 Total Particulars A.Y. 2011- 12 - 466,845,231 1,629,052,628 Total Sale proceeds u/s 68 (on a/c of alleged 1,162,207,39 bogus LTCG) 29,954,940. 103,622,995 7 73,668,055 6.5% of LTCG

SH. SANJAY SINGAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

Bench: S/Shri N.K. Saini, Vice- & Rajpal Yadav, Vice-

138,686,123 678,507,515 1,705,146,806 Aniket Singal A.Y. 2013-14 A.Y. 2014-15 Total Particulars A.Y. 2011- 12 - 466,845,231 1,629,052,628 Total Sale proceeds u/s 68 (on a/c of alleged 1,162,207,39 bogus LTCG) 29,954,940. 103,622,995 7 73,668,055 6.5% of LTCG

SMT. AARTI SINGAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

Bench: S/Shri N.K. Saini, Vice- & Rajpal Yadav, Vice-

138,686,123 678,507,515 1,705,146,806 Aniket Singal A.Y. 2013-14 A.Y. 2014-15 Total Particulars A.Y. 2011- 12 - 466,845,231 1,629,052,628 Total Sale proceeds u/s 68 (on a/c of alleged 1,162,207,39 bogus LTCG) 29,954,940. 103,622,995 7 73,668,055 6.5% of LTCG

SMT. AARTI SINGAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

Bench: S/Shri N.K. Saini, Vice- & Rajpal Yadav, Vice-

138,686,123 678,507,515 1,705,146,806 Aniket Singal A.Y. 2013-14 A.Y. 2014-15 Total Particulars A.Y. 2011- 12 - 466,845,231 1,629,052,628 Total Sale proceeds u/s 68 (on a/c of alleged 1,162,207,39 bogus LTCG) 29,954,940. 103,622,995 7 73,668,055 6.5% of LTCG

SMT. AARTI SINGAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

Bench: S/Shri N.K. Saini, Vice- & Rajpal Yadav, Vice-

138,686,123 678,507,515 1,705,146,806 Aniket Singal A.Y. 2013-14 A.Y. 2014-15 Total Particulars A.Y. 2011- 12 - 466,845,231 1,629,052,628 Total Sale proceeds u/s 68 (on a/c of alleged 1,162,207,39 bogus LTCG) 29,954,940. 103,622,995 7 73,668,055 6.5% of LTCG

SH. ANIKET SINGAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

Bench: S/Shri N.K. Saini, Vice- & Rajpal Yadav, Vice-

138,686,123 678,507,515 1,705,146,806 Aniket Singal A.Y. 2013-14 A.Y. 2014-15 Total Particulars A.Y. 2011- 12 - 466,845,231 1,629,052,628 Total Sale proceeds u/s 68 (on a/c of alleged 1,162,207,39 bogus LTCG) 29,954,940. 103,622,995 7 73,668,055 6.5% of LTCG

SH. ANIKET SINGAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

Bench: S/Shri N.K. Saini, Vice- & Rajpal Yadav, Vice-

138,686,123 678,507,515 1,705,146,806 Aniket Singal A.Y. 2013-14 A.Y. 2014-15 Total Particulars A.Y. 2011- 12 - 466,845,231 1,629,052,628 Total Sale proceeds u/s 68 (on a/c of alleged 1,162,207,39 bogus LTCG) 29,954,940. 103,622,995 7 73,668,055 6.5% of LTCG

SH. SANJAY SINGAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

Bench: S/Shri N.K. Saini, Vice- & Rajpal Yadav, Vice-

138,686,123 678,507,515 1,705,146,806 Aniket Singal A.Y. 2013-14 A.Y. 2014-15 Total Particulars A.Y. 2011- 12 - 466,845,231 1,629,052,628 Total Sale proceeds u/s 68 (on a/c of alleged 1,162,207,39 bogus LTCG) 29,954,940. 103,622,995 7 73,668,055 6.5% of LTCG

SH. SANJAY SINGAL HUF,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

Bench: S/Shri N.K. Saini, Vice- & Rajpal Yadav, Vice-

138,686,123 678,507,515 1,705,146,806 Aniket Singal A.Y. 2013-14 A.Y. 2014-15 Total Particulars A.Y. 2011- 12 - 466,845,231 1,629,052,628 Total Sale proceeds u/s 68 (on a/c of alleged 1,162,207,39 bogus LTCG) 29,954,940. 103,622,995 7 73,668,055 6.5% of LTCG

SHRI GURU RAM DASS EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,MOHALI vs. PR.CIT(CENTRAL) GURGAON, AT CHANDIGARH

138 (Delhi) • Kalinga Institute of Industrial Technology Vs. CIT [ 2011] 336 ITR 389 (Orissa) 5.5 The Ld. Pr. CIT observed that a detailed show cause notice had been issued to the assessee which was based on the statement, documents and evidence etc. collected during the search and post search proceedings and also on perusal of the return and details examined

CHANDIGARH EDUCATIONAL TRUST,MOHALI vs. PR.CIT-CENTRAL,GURGAON, AT CHANDIGARH

138 (Delhi) • Kalinga Institute of Industrial Technology Vs. CIT [ 2011] 336 ITR 389 (Orissa) 5.5 The Ld. Pr. CIT observed that a detailed show cause notice had been issued to the assessee which was based on the statement, documents and evidence etc. collected during the search and post search proceedings and also on perusal of the return and details examined

CHANDIGARH EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,MOHALI vs. PR.CIT(CENTRAL)-GURGAON, AT CHANDIGARH

138 (Delhi) • Kalinga Institute of Industrial Technology Vs. CIT [ 2011] 336 ITR 389 (Orissa) 5.5 The Ld. Pr. CIT observed that a detailed show cause notice had been issued to the assessee which was based on the statement, documents and evidence etc. collected during the search and post search proceedings and also on perusal of the return and details examined

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)

138 taxmann.com 207 (SC), the Hon'ble Delhi High Court held that "... The petitioner herein had admittedly deposited Rs. 11,40,000/- in cash in his bank account. Though the said entry is reflected in the Return of Income, yet no supporting evidences are available to prove the source of deposit. Consequently, this Court is of the view that

S.P. SINGLA CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH (Vice President), SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

138. The relevant reasons recorded were referred by ld. counsel and the same are being reproduced as under: Reasons recorded for initiating proceedings ids 148 of the I.T. Act, 1961, Reasons recorded in the case of Ms. S P Singla Constructions Pvt. Ltd. A.Y 2012-13 in respect of initiation of re-assessment proceedings u/s 147/148 of the Income

DCIT, C-1, (E), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S MANAV MANGAL SOCIETY, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the department are dismissed

bogus commission income. No such document has been brought to my notice by the AO or Survey Report that establishes trail of transfer of cash clandestinely to the members of the society. Hence, if there is bogus commission raised by the members of the society, Ld.AO is free to initiate action against the members in their personal capacities as they

DCIT, C-1, (E), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S MANAV MANGAL SOCIETY, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the department are dismissed

bogus commission income. No such document has been brought to my notice by the AO or Survey Report that establishes trail of transfer of cash clandestinely to the members of the society. Hence, if there is bogus commission raised by the members of the society, Ld.AO is free to initiate action against the members in their personal capacities as they