M/S DIN DAYAL PURSOTAM LAL,SIRSA vs. PR.CIT, ROHTAK

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

delay is hereby condoned and appeal of the assessee is admitted for adjudication. 6. Ground Nos. 3, 4 and 4.1 are not pressed. Accordingly, these grounds are rejected. 7. Ground No.1 is general and needs no adjudication. 8. Apropos Ground Nos.2 to 2.7, the facts are that the ld. PCIT issued a Show Cause Notice dated 06.08.2019 to the assessee

DCIT,CIRCLE-I, LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA vs. ADINATH TEXTILES LIMITED, LUDHIANA

In the result both the appeal filed by the Revenue and Cross objection filed by the Assessee are dismissed

Bench: the appeal is finally heard or disposed off.

condone the delay. 6. The Departmental Representative argued that the original return was processed u/s 143(1) and the proceedings were initiated by issue of notice u/s 148 by recording the reasons and thereafter, the notice u/s 142(1) was issued. It was stated that certain information was received from the office of DCIT, Central Circle, Kolkata that on account

SARAF THE JEWELLERS, CHANDIGARH,CHANDIGARH vs. THE DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CEN-2 CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

Appeal stand dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.1230/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2019-20) Saraf The Jeweller Dcit / Acit (Central)-2 बनाम/ Sco 45, Pocket No.1 C.R. Building Nac Showroom, Manimajra Himalaya Marg, Vs. Chandigarh – 160101 Sector-17E, Chandigarh "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Adafs-2345-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.1592/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2019-20) Dcit / Acit (Central)-2 Saraf The Jeweller बनाम/ C.R. Building Sco 45, Pocket No.1 Himalaya Marg, Nac Showroom, Manimajra Vs. Sector-17E, Chandigarh Chandigarh – 160101 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Adafs-2345-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/Appellant Sh. Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) & Sh. Sahil Ratra (Advocate) – Ld. Ars By : ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Abhishek Pal Garg (Cit) & Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Drs सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12.02.2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 10.03.2026 : आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench 1.1 Aforesaid Cross-Appeals For Assessment Year (Ay) 2019-20Arises Out Of An Order Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3

Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act in respect of digital data on the basis of which, certain uncalled for addition have been made and also at best for the sake of argument, it is stated that only appropriate net profit ratio could be applied on such alleged suppression of receipts, rather than confirming the entire addition of Rs.8

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHANDIGARH vs. SARAF THE JEWELLERS, PUNJAB

Appeal stand dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.1230/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2019-20) Saraf The Jeweller Dcit / Acit (Central)-2 बनाम/ Sco 45, Pocket No.1 C.R. Building Nac Showroom, Manimajra Himalaya Marg, Vs. Chandigarh – 160101 Sector-17E, Chandigarh "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Adafs-2345-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.1592/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2019-20) Dcit / Acit (Central)-2 Saraf The Jeweller बनाम/ C.R. Building Sco 45, Pocket No.1 Himalaya Marg, Nac Showroom, Manimajra Vs. Sector-17E, Chandigarh Chandigarh – 160101 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Adafs-2345-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/Appellant Sh. Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) & Sh. Sahil Ratra (Advocate) – Ld. Ars By : ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Abhishek Pal Garg (Cit) & Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Drs सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12.02.2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 10.03.2026 : आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench 1.1 Aforesaid Cross-Appeals For Assessment Year (Ay) 2019-20Arises Out Of An Order Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3

Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act in respect of digital data on the basis of which, certain uncalled for addition have been made and also at best for the sake of argument, it is stated that only appropriate net profit ratio could be applied on such alleged suppression of receipts, rather than confirming the entire addition of Rs.8

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHANDIGARH vs. SARAF THE JEWELLERS, PUNJAB

Appeal stand dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.1232/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22) Saraf The Jeweller Dcit / Acit (Central)-2 बनाम/ Sco 45, Pocket No.1 C.R. Building Nac Showroom, Manimajra Himalaya Marg, Vs. Chandigarh – 160101 Sector-17E, Chandigarh "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Adafs-2345-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.1594/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22) Dcit / Acit (Central)-2 Saraf The Jeweller बनाम/ C.R. Building Sco 45, Pocket No.1 Himalaya Marg, Nac Showroom, Manimajra Vs. Sector-17E, Chandigarh Chandigarh – 160101 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Adafs-2345-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) Assessee By : Sh. Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) & Sh. Sahil Ratra (Advocate) – Ld. Ars Revenue By : Sh. Abhishek Pal Garg (Cit) & Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Drs सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12.02.2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 12.03.2026 : आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench

Section 115BBE on such addition is not justified. 6. That the finding of CIT(A) in conforming the above addition of cash is contrary, since already having accepted the contention of the assessee about the availability of amount of short stock as per books of account and, as such, the confirmation of addition is against the facts and circumstances

SARAF THE JEWELLER, CHANDIGARH,CHANDIGARH vs. THE DCIT/ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE -2, CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

Appeal stand dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.1231/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21) Saraf The Jeweller Dcit / Acit (Central)-2 बनाम/ Sco 45, Pocket No.1 C.R. Building Nac Showroom, Manimajra Himalaya Marg, Vs. Chandigarh – 160101 Sector-17E, Chandigarh "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Adafs-2345-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.1593/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21) Dcit / Acit (Central)-2 Saraf The Jeweller बनाम/ C.R. Building Sco 45, Pocket No.1 Himalaya Marg, Nac Showroom, Manimajra Vs. Sector-17E, Chandigarh Chandigarh – 160101 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Adafs-2345-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/Appellant Sh. Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) & Sh. Sahil Ratra (Advocate) – Ld. Ars By : ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Abhishek Pal Garg (Cit) & Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Drs सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12.02.2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 11.03.2026 : आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench

Section 115BBE of the difference of the alleged cost of construction is not sustainable. 5. That CIT(A) has erred in making the addition of Rs.2,07,40,000/- on account of unsecured loan u/s 68 and applying the provisions of Sec.115BBE of the Income Tax Act and this addition was not called for as no incriminating evidence in respect

SARAF THE JEWELLER, CHANDIGARH,CHANDIGARH vs. THE DCIT/ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE- 2, CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

Appeal stand dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.1232/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22) Saraf The Jeweller Dcit / Acit (Central)-2 बनाम/ Sco 45, Pocket No.1 C.R. Building Nac Showroom, Manimajra Himalaya Marg, Vs. Chandigarh – 160101 Sector-17E, Chandigarh "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Adafs-2345-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.1594/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22) Dcit / Acit (Central)-2 Saraf The Jeweller बनाम/ C.R. Building Sco 45, Pocket No.1 Himalaya Marg, Nac Showroom, Manimajra Vs. Sector-17E, Chandigarh Chandigarh – 160101 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Adafs-2345-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) Assessee By : Sh. Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) & Sh. Sahil Ratra (Advocate) – Ld. Ars Revenue By : Sh. Abhishek Pal Garg (Cit) & Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Drs सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12.02.2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 12.03.2026 : आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench

Section 115BBE on such addition is not justified. 6. That the finding of CIT(A) in conforming the above addition of cash is contrary, since already having accepted the contention of the assessee about the availability of amount of short stock as per books of account and, as such, the confirmation of addition is against the facts and circumstances

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHANDIGARH vs. SARAF THE JEWELLERS, PUNJAB

Appeal stand dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.1231/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21) Saraf The Jeweller Dcit / Acit (Central)-2 बनाम/ Sco 45, Pocket No.1 C.R. Building Nac Showroom, Manimajra Himalaya Marg, Vs. Chandigarh – 160101 Sector-17E, Chandigarh "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Adafs-2345-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.1593/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21) Dcit / Acit (Central)-2 Saraf The Jeweller बनाम/ C.R. Building Sco 45, Pocket No.1 Himalaya Marg, Nac Showroom, Manimajra Vs. Sector-17E, Chandigarh Chandigarh – 160101 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Adafs-2345-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/Appellant Sh. Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) & Sh. Sahil Ratra (Advocate) – Ld. Ars By : ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Abhishek Pal Garg (Cit) & Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Drs सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12.02.2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 11.03.2026 : आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench

Section 115BBE of the difference of the alleged cost of construction is not sustainable. 5. That CIT(A) has erred in making the addition of Rs.2,07,40,000/- on account of unsecured loan u/s 68 and applying the provisions of Sec.115BBE of the Income Tax Act and this addition was not called for as no incriminating evidence in respect

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, LUDHIANA , LUDHIANA vs. ROSHA ALLOYS PVT. LTD., MANDI GOBINDGARH

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed,\nwhereas the appeals of the assessee are allowed

168\ntaxmann.com 72 (Amritsar - Trib.)/[2025] 210 ITD 1 (Amritsar - Trib.) [18-\n10-2024]\nf)\nFloyd Filandro Linhares vs. Income-tax Officer [2024] 166\ntaxmann.com 125 (Bombay)/[2025] 473 ITR 587 (Bombay) [07-08-2024]\ng)\nSBC Minerals (P.) Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax\n[2024] 167 taxmann.com 113 (Delhi)[20-08-2024]\nh)\nCENTRAL INDIA ELECTRIC SUPPLY

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, LUDHIANA , LUDHIANA vs. ROSHA ALLOYS PVT. LTD., MANDI GOBINDGARH

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed,\nwhereas the appeals of the assessee are allowed

168\ntaxmann.com 72 (Amritsar - Trib.)/[2025] 210 ITD 1 (Amritsar - Trib.) [18-\n10-2024]\nf)\nFloyd Filandro Linhares vs. Income-tax Officer [2024] 166\ntaxmann.com 125 (Bombay)/[2025] 473 ITR 587 (Bombay) [07-08-2024]\ng)\nSBC Minerals (P.) Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax\n[2024] 167 taxmann.com 113 (Delhi)[20-08-2024]\nh)\nCENTRAL INDIA ELECTRIC SUPPLY

ROSHA ALLOYS P LIMITED, AMLOH ROAD, VILLAGE TURAN, MANDI GOBINDGARH,PUNJAB vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, LUDHIANA, PUNJAB

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed,\nwhereas the appeals of the assessee are allowed

168\ntaxmann.com 72 (Amritsar - Trib.)/[2025] 210 ITD 1 (Amritsar - Trib.) [18-\n10-2024]\nf)\nFloyd Filandro Linhares vs. Income-tax Officer [2024] 166\ntaxmann.com 125 (Bombay)/[2025] 473 ITR 587 (Bombay) [07-08-2024]\ng)\nSBC Minerals (P.) Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax\n[2024] 167 taxmann.com 113 (Delhi)[20-08-2024]\nh)\nCENTRAL INDIA ELECTRIC SUPPLY

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, LUDHIANA , LUDHIANA vs. ROSHA ALLOYS PVT. LTD., MANDI GOBINDGARH

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed,\nwhereas the appeals of the assessee are allowed

168\ntaxmann.com 72 (Amritsar - Trib.)/[2025] 210 ITD 1 (Amritsar - Trib.) [18-\n10-2024]\nf)\nFloyd Filandro Linhares vs. Income-tax Officer [2024] 166\ntaxmann.com 125 (Bombay)/[2025] 473 ITR 587 (Bombay) [07-08-2024]\ng)\nSBC Minerals (P.) Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax\n[2024] 167 taxmann.com 113 (Delhi)[20-08-2024]\nh)\nCENTRAL INDIA ELECTRIC SUPPLY