ACIT, CIRCLE 1(1), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S SML ISUZU LTD., CHANDIGARH

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

Capital and Debt Market Ltd. v. ACIT: 118 TTJ 351 (Mum ITAT) - Angel Commodities Broking (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT: 164 TTJ 275 (Mum ITAT) - FedEx Express Transportation & Supply Chain Services India (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT: 169 TTJ 732 (Mum. Trib.) - Bhavik Rajesh Khandra Share and Stock Brokers (P) Ltd. vs DCIT: 8 ITR(Trib) 155 (Mum. Trib) - Kisan Ratilal Choksey

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)

gains, nor is it income from "other sources" because the provisions of sections 69,69A, 69B and 69C treat unexplained investment, unexplained money, bullion, etc., and unexplained expenditure as deemed income where the nature and source of investment, acquisition or expenditure, as the case may be, have not been explained or satisfactorily explained, Therefore, in these cases, the source

SH. RANDHIR SINGH,SIRSA vs. PCIT ROHTAK, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

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

section 2 of section 56, clause(iv) in section 57 and clause (b) in Section 145A w.e.f. 01.04.2010. From the assessment year 2010-11 onwards, the amount of compensation or enhanced compensation is taxable as "income from other sources" after allowing deduction of a sum equal to 50% of such income in the year of receipt The Hon'ble Apex

SH. PARAMJEET SINGH,SIRSA vs. PCIT, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

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

section 2 of section 56, clause(iv) in section 57 and clause (b) in Section 145A w.e.f. 01.04.2010. From the assessment year 2010-11 onwards, the amount of compensation or enhanced compensation is taxable as "income from other sources" after allowing deduction of a sum equal to 50% of such income in the year of receipt The Hon'ble Apex

SURJEET SINGH,SIRSA vs. PCIT, ROHTAK, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

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

section 2 of section 56, clause(iv) in section 57 and clause (b) in Section 145A w.e.f. 01.04.2010. From the assessment year 2010-11 onwards, the amount of compensation or enhanced compensation is taxable as "income from other sources" after allowing deduction of a sum equal to 50% of such income in the year of receipt The Hon'ble Apex

DHUNI CHAND HUF,SIRSA vs. PCIT, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

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

section 2 of section 56, clause(iv) in section 57 and clause (b) in Section 145A w.e.f. 01.04.2010. From the assessment year 2010-11 onwards, the amount of compensation or enhanced compensation is taxable as "income from other sources" after allowing deduction of a sum equal to 50% of such income in the year of receipt The Hon'ble Apex

SH. KASHMIR SINGH SANDHA,SIRSA vs. PCIT, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

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

section 2 of section 56, clause(iv) in section 57 and clause (b) in Section 145A w.e.f. 01.04.2010. From the assessment year 2010-11 onwards, the amount of compensation or enhanced compensation is taxable as "income from other sources" after allowing deduction of a sum equal to 50% of such income in the year of receipt The Hon'ble Apex

SH. ARVAIL SINGH,SIRSA vs. PCIT, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

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

section 2 of section 56, clause(iv) in section 57 and clause (b) in Section 145A w.e.f. 01.04.2010. From the assessment year 2010-11 onwards, the amount of compensation or enhanced compensation is taxable as "income from other sources" after allowing deduction of a sum equal to 50% of such income in the year of receipt The Hon'ble Apex

M/S GANESH DASS HUF,SIRSA vs. PCIT, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

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

section 2 of section 56, clause(iv) in section 57 and clause (b) in Section 145A w.e.f. 01.04.2010. From the assessment year 2010-11 onwards, the amount of compensation or enhanced compensation is taxable as "income from other sources" after allowing deduction of a sum equal to 50% of such income in the year of receipt The Hon'ble Apex

NEERU ARORA,CHANDIGARH vs. CIRCLE-1, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms indicated above

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

section 48 and 55 of the Act. 12. The learned AR reiterated the submissions and placed reliance on multiple judicial precedents including those of the Supreme Court, High Courts and coordinate benches to support the claim that the addition made by the AO was erroneous and liable to be deleted. 13. The learned DR, however, supported the order

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)

capital account and Rs. 11,00,000/- in the name of M/s. Asha Telecom Pvt. Ltd. as liabilities. But it did not furnish any information regarding sources of these credits and neither any confirmation from M/s. Asha Telecom Pvt. Ltd. was furnished. Similarly, Para 8 of the questionnaire remained unanswered. Vide Para 9 of its reply, it was stated that

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)

capital account and Rs. 11,00,000/- in the name of M/s. Asha Telecom Pvt. Ltd. as liabilities. But it did not furnish any information regarding sources of these credits and neither any confirmation from M/s. Asha Telecom Pvt. Ltd. was furnished. Similarly, Para 8 of the questionnaire remained unanswered. Vide Para 9 of its reply, it was stated that

GEETA SHARMA,SUNAM vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , PATIALA

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

capital gains arising from the transfer of the property also d oe snot arise. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the entire receipts of Rs.2,83,94,932.00 shall be treated as revenue receipts and shall be taxed as income the assessee from other sources of the financial year relevant for the assessment year under consideration

AVI AGGARWAL, H.NO. 171-R, MODEL TOWN, LUDHIANA,PUNJAB vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT NFAC, DELHI, JAO ITO WARD6(1), AAYAKAR BHAWAN, RISHI NAGAR, LUDHIANA, PUNJAB

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

capital gain from the sale of shares of 'Twenty First Century India Ltd. As per information, it was found that the assessee had sold 1,55,800/- shares of 'Twenty First Century India Ltd.' for Rs. 5,05,29,200/- and, accordingly, notice u/s 148, dated 30.03.2019 was issued and served upon the assessee. In response to that, the assessee

SH. BALJINDER KUMAR AGGARWAL 171, MODEL TOWN LUDHIANA,PUNJAB vs. JATIN ABBI THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1 LUDHIANA, PUNJAB

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 689/Chd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 बनाम Shri Baljinder Kumar Aggarwal, The Acit, 171, Model Town, Circle-1, Vs Ludhiana. Ludhiana. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan /Tan No: Bmcpk7473A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent िनधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Manav Bansal, Cit, Dr तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21.08.2025 उदघोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 17.09.2025

3. Judgment in the case of ACIT vs. Bhavik Bharatbhai Padia as reported in [2017] 78 taxmann.com 133 (Ahmedabad-Trib.) 4. Judgment in the case of Rama Mittal vs. ITO, NFAC as reported in [2024] 163 taxmann.com 612 (ASR-Trib.) 5. Judgment in the case of Durga Devi Bagree vs. ITO as reported in [2023] 157 taxmann.com 607 (Raipur-Trib

BHUPINDER SINGH SON OF SH. GURMUKH SINGH ,PUNJAB vs. THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CHANDIGARH-1, C.R BUILDING HIMALAYA MARG, SECTOR 17-E, CHANDIGARH, PUNJAB

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

200/- for this crop season. IN second season the assessee received Rs. 3,39,000/- in cash and out of this the assessee incurred expenses of Rs. 89,500/-. That after deducting the expenses from the total receipts, the remaining cash amount was kept by the assessee with himself. It is fairly submitted that however there is no “J” Form

SANJEEV KUMAR MITTAL 3-J, BLOCK AREA, SHRI GANGA NAGAR-335001,RAJASTHAN vs. HARISH CHANDER MITTAL ACIT CIRCLE SRIGANGANAGAR CURRENT JURISDICTIONAL AO DCIT CC-II LUDHIANA, PUNJAB

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Krinwant Sahayassessment Year 2017-18 Sanjeev Kumar Mittal Vs. Harish Chander Mittal, 3-J, Block Area, Acit Shri Ganga Nagar, Circle Sri Ganganagar Rajasthan - 335 001 Current Jurisdictional Ao Dcit Cc-Ii, Ludhiana, Punjab Tan/ Pan : Abbpm 9387 N (Appellant) (Respondent) Applicant By: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Adv. Respondent By: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Adll. Cit, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 02 01 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 20 01 2025 O R D E R

section 50C of the Act of the immovable property sold on 20.09.2016 at Rs.1,11,18,800/- and accordingly, assessing the Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG). 2 Sanjeev Kumar Mittal vs. Harish Chander Mittal ACIT A.Y. 2017-18 3. Brief facts are that the assessee filed his return of income for relevant A.Y. 2017-18 on 30.10.2017. During the course

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)

gains derived from eligible business and couple of other orders / decisions / judgement of other High Courts too enumerated in the impugned order we do not find any justifiable and plausible argument is canvassed by Revenue in appeal on meritorious grounds to dislodge the impugned order. Further assessee has placed reliance on decision of this Tribunal that too in there