M/S TJR PROPERTIES PVT. LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. ACIT, CC-2, CHANDIGARH

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

deposited in cash without any justification. 12. That the learned CIT(A) has wrongly upheld addition of Rs. 45,00,000/- u/s 68 of the Act on surmises and conjectures. 13. That the learned CIT(A) has wrongly upheld disallowance of loss of Rs. 2,97,834/- without any justification. 14. That the learned CIT(A) has wrongly upheld disallowance

ACIT, CC-2, CHANDIGARH vs. M/S TJR PROPERTIES PVT. LTD., CHANDIGARH

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

deposited in cash without any justification. 12. That the learned CIT(A) has wrongly upheld addition of Rs. 45,00,000/- u/s 68 of the Act on surmises and conjectures. 13. That the learned CIT(A) has wrongly upheld disallowance of loss of Rs. 2,97,834/- without any justification. 14. That the learned CIT(A) has wrongly upheld disallowance

M/S TJR PROPERTIES PVT. LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. ACIT, CC-2, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the Appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

deposits in the copy of cash account (paperbook page 12). 26.1 As per the Income Account on paperbook page 46, the assessee company has Total Receipt of Rs. 15,50,000/-, after deduction expenses of Rs. 1,00,000/- and an amount f Rs. 5,00,000/- as cheque issued but not presented for payment, the company has declared income

M/S TJR PROPERTIES PVT. LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. ACIT, CC-2, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the Appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

deposited in cash by the appellant without any justification. 9. That the learned CIT(A) has wrongly upheld addition of Rs. 1,03,63,000/- u/s 68 of the Act on surmises and conjectures. 10. That the learned CIT(A) has wrongly upheld disallowance of loss of Rs. 9,66,547/- without any justification. 11. That the learned

M/S K.LALL OVERSEAS,LUDHIANA vs. ACIT,CIRCLE-6, LUDHIANA

The appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

cash was deposited in the bank account of the Kips Corner which was out of its sale proceeds, out of which the loan amount was given by the said party to the assessee. There is no rebuttal by any of the lower authorities in respect of aforesaid submissions made by the assessee. The ld. CIT(A) has also not made

ACIT, LUDHIANA vs. M/S K LAL OVERSEAS PVT. LTD., LUDHIANA

The appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

cash was deposited in the bank account of the Kips Corner which was out of its sale proceeds, out of which the loan amount was given by the said party to the assessee. There is no rebuttal by any of the lower authorities in respect of aforesaid submissions made by the assessee. The ld. CIT(A) has also not made

JAINSONS AGENCIES,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO, WARD 2(3), CHANDIGARH

The appeal stands allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1219/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) M/S Jainsons Agencies Ito Ward-2(3) बनाम/ Vs. Sco 175-176, Ferozi Building Chandigarh Sector – 17C, Chandigarh - 160017 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aadfj-4648-N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Jaspal Sharma (Advocate) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Vivek Vardhan (Addl. Cit) - Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25-03-2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 06-04-2026 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18 Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac [Cit(A)] Dated 26-08-2025 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S 143(3) Of The Act On 27-12-2019. The Sole Grievance Of The Assessee Is Confirmation Of Additions Of Cash Deposit During Demonetization Period For Rs.36.99 Lacs & Confirmation Of Another Addition Of Rs.6.32 Lacs. Having

deposits and this onus stood discharged by the assessee by furnishing the cash books and quantitative details. On these facts, the impugned addition of Rs.36.99 Lacs could not be sustained in law. We order so. 4. So far as the addition of Rs.6.32 Lacs is concerned, it could be seen that the same represent sale proceeds of small fixed assets

ACIT, CC-2, CHANDIGARH vs. M/S TJR PROPERTIES PVT. LTD., CHANDIGARH

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

deposited in cash by the appellant without any justification. 8. That the learned CIT(A) has wrongly upheld addition of Rs. 14,20,000/- u/s 68 of the Act on surmises and conjectures. 9. That the learned CIT(A) has wrongly upheld disallowance of loss of Rs.50,231/- without discussing the same in the impugned order. 10. That the learned

M/S TJR PROPERTIES PVT. LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. ACIT, CC-2, CHANDIGARH

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

deposited in cash by the appellant without any justification. 8. That the learned CIT(A) has wrongly upheld addition of Rs. 14,20,000/- u/s 68 of the Act on surmises and conjectures. 9. That the learned CIT(A) has wrongly upheld disallowance of loss of Rs.50,231/- without discussing the same in the impugned order. 10. That the learned

ACIT, CC-2, CHANDIGARH vs. SHRI KARAJ SINGH, YAMUNA NAGAR

In the result, the revenue’s appeal ITA No

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 726/Chandi/2022 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Acit-Central Circle 2 Shri Karaj Singh बनाम/ Cr Building Sector 17 H. No 1379, Modern Colony, Near Iti Vs. Chandigarh 160017 Yamuna Nagar (Haryana) "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Atups-5528-A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & 2. Co. No. 16/Chandi/2024 [In Ita No. 726/Chandi/2022 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Shri Karaj Singh Acit-Central Circle 2 बनाम/ H. No 1379, Modern Colony, Near Iti, Cr Building Sector 17 Vs. Yamuna Nagar (Haryana) Chandigarh 160017 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Atups-5528-A (Cross-Objector) : (Respondent) Revenue By : Smt. Kusum Bansal (Cit) – Ld. Dr Assessee By : Shri Dhruv Goel (Ca) - Ld. Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18-09-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 08/10/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1.1 Aforesaid Appeal By Revenue For Assessment Year (Ay) 2018-19 Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 3, Gurgaon [Cit(A)] Dated 26-09-2022 In The Matter Of An Assessment

cash deposit of Rs.5 Lacs in the account of Shri Rajbeer Singh before advancing the same to the assessee. Therefore, out of Rs.20 Lacs, addition of Rs.5 Lacs was confirmed whereas the addition of Rs.15 Lacs was confirmed. In other words, addition was confirmed to the extent of Rs.10 Lacs out of total addition of Rs.26 Lacs as made

PREM SINGH,CHAMBA vs. ACIT CIRCLE PALAMPUR, PALAMPUR

In the result, the appeal for AY 2017-18 stands partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 946/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 947/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shri Prem Singh Dcit Circle, Palampur बनाम/ The Palace. Chamba Himachal Pradesh - 176061 Vs. Himachal Pradesh – 176310 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aampr-8876-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ajay Jain (Ca) – Ld. Ar Revenue By : Shri Bharat Bhushan Garg (Cit) (Virtual) - Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13-11-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13-01-2026 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. The Assessee Is In Further Appeals Before Us For Assessment Years (Ay) 2015-16 & 2017-18 Which Arises Out Of Separate Orders Of Learned First Appellate Authority. First, We Take Up Appeal For Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16 Which Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac [Cit(A)] Dated 22-07-2025 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S 143(3) Of The Act On 29-12-2017. The Assessee Is Aggrieved By Computation Of Capital

depreciating the same, the value of the built-up portion in the year 2014 has been determined as Rs.4.28 Lacs. In the said report, a certificate has been issued by valuer as under: - The subject property measuring 19.02 Acres or 8,29,818 sft along with workers quarters & built residential shed of approx. 2000 sft has good potential

INCOME TAX OFFICER, YAMUNA NAGAR vs. RAJESH KHANNA, YAMUNA NAGAR

In the result, the assessee's appeal in ITA

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

cash deposits in my account. So simply on the basis of third party evidence in my hand 2,74,00,000/- sales is proposed to be added which is without understanding what is their statement and without their cross examination. That picture is not an evidence in my case. That is settled law that document found from third party

RAJESH KHANNA,NEELKANTH PLYWOOD, YAMUNANAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3, INCOME TAX OFFICER, YAMUNANAGAR

In the result, the assessee's appeal in ITA

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

cash deposits in my account. So simply on the basis of third party evidence in my hand 2,74,00,000/- sales is proposed to be added which is without understanding what is their statement and without their cross examination. That picture is not an evidence in my case. That is settled law that document found from third party

M/S SINGH CONSTRUCTION CO.,PATIALA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE, PATIAL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

cash, stock etc. You had disclosed an additional income of Rs.65 lakhs other than normal income. Your profit & loss account showed, however, that you credited only Rs 60 Lakhs on account of surrendered income instead of Rs.65 Lakhs to your P&L account. The net profit shown is the P&L account by you was Rs.1,03,53.180/- From

GEETA VIDYA MANDIR SIKSHA SAMITI,NARAINGARH vs. ITO, (E), AMBALA

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

Bench: The Appeal Is Finally Heard Or Disposed Off.

deposited in respective 19893.00 bank a/c to be spent for respective fund directly in 11670.00 supervision of Distt. Education and subject to Audit:- 90.00 90.00 AMG+CCWF** Red Cross C.W. Exam Sports **Kindly see Annexure 'A' and Page 8 of Audit report given by Deputy Director, Local Audit Haryana. Balance 11410617.00 Less: 15% set apart for future

M/S HEADMASTER SALOON PVT.LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT-CIRCLE-1(1), CHANDIGARH

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)

deposited on the returned income. Copy of letter dated 05.03.2014 in enclosed for ready reference.” We notice that there are four annexures in the reply letter of the assessee which are not placed in the paper book. 15. The Ld. AO in the assessment order dt. 27/12/2016 under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on page

SANJEEV KUMAR GOYAL,FATEHABAD vs. DCIT, CC-2, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is allowed

Bench: This Hon’Ble Tribunal Under Section 253 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 As Amended From Time To Time. 2. The Assessee Is Aggrieved By The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Dt. 20/01/2023 In Appeal No. 10853/2018-19/It/Cit(A)-5/Ldh/2021-22 For The A.Y. 2019-20 Under Section 250(6) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Which Was Dismissed. Therefore The Present Second Appeal Under Section 253 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Before Us Against The Aforesaid Order Dt. 20/01/2023 Which Is Hereinafter Referred To As The Impugned Order.

depreciation during the year under consideration. During^ the assessment proceedings the assessee has not produced any bills/Vouchers/proof of payment/copy of accounts of the building as Capital Work in Progress to substantiate the claim of source of investment made for the construction of building. The onus to prove the sources of the surrender income lies entirely on the assessee because

DY. 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)

cash discount earned) 2014-15 R&D expenses 2015-16 (i) R&D expenses (ii) Administration expenses (iii) Miscellaneous expenses 2016-17 (i) R&D expenses (ii) Miscellaneous expenses 2017-18 Allowed as claimed 2018-19 Allowed as claimed 26. Findings & Conclusions in respect of ground no. 4 (supra) i.e; deductions u/s 80 IC R&D Expenses 26.1 We basis