BANGA HOSPITALS PRIVATE LIMITED,MANDI vs. ITO, MANDI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

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

69A cannot be invoked. 5.2 Regarding the second addition, the AO observed that the assessee had shown investment in fixed assets amounting to Rs.5,75,13,822/- during the relevant previous year. It was further noted that a term loan of Rs.4,71,30,000/- was obtained by the assessee from HDFC Bank towards the purchase of an MRI machine

SH. GURINDER MAKKAR,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-3, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is disposed off in light of aforesaid directions

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

depreciation of such building would result in double taxation. 6.9 It was submitted that as the assessee has duly paid tax on all such amount of surrender made by the assessee, therefore, making additions of the same amount to the total income of the assessee are wholly invalid as it results 'double taxation and therefore, against the principles of natural

VIMAL ALLOYS PRIVATE LIMITED, MANDI GOBINDGARH,PUNJAB vs. JAO THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE, PATIALA, PUNJAB

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

69A of the Act. 4. Against the order of the AO the assessee went in appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). 5. The Ld. CIT(A) upheld the addition by observing that the excel sheet constituted incriminating material found during search, that the assessee failed to rebut the same, and that the reopening was validly initiated on the basis of tangible

M/S SANJAY SINGAL HUF,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

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

69A of the Income Tax Act, as held by the ld. CIT(A), or under Section 68 thereof, as had been done by the AO; and that as to whether the authorities below are not justified in making addition of an amount of Rs.1,19,03,842/-, under Section 69C of the Act, on account of alleged unaccounted ITA 655/CHD/2023

SANJAY SINGAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

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

69A of the Income Tax Act, as held by the ld. CIT(A), or under Section 68 thereof, as had been done by the AO; and that as to whether the authorities below are not justified in making addition of an amount of Rs.1,19,03,842/-, under Section 69C of the Act, on account of alleged unaccounted ITA 655/CHD/2023

SH. MOHIT MITTAL PROP. MITTAL ENTERPRISES,LUDHIANA, PUNJAB vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1 LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA, PUNJAB

In the result, appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahay

69A, 69B, 69C and 69D, the provisions of Section II5BBE are not attracted in this case. 10. In view of the above, the action of the lower authorities in invoking provisions of Section II5BBE on the surrender income of Rs. 15 lacs is set aside and the AO is directed to compute the said surrendered A.Y.2020-21 9 income under normal

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)

69A of the Act, holding the same to be the unaccounted sales turnover of the assessee during the year under consideration. 7.12 In this regard, while the AO has elaborated in detail as to the working of unaccounted sales, but he has failed to substantiate why he has treated the entire suppressed sales as unaccounted income of the assessee

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)

69A of the Act, holding the same to be the unaccounted sales turnover of the assessee during the year under consideration. 7.12 In this regard, while the AO has elaborated in detail as to the working of unaccounted sales, but he has failed to substantiate why he has treated the entire suppressed sales as unaccounted income of the assessee

PRIYANKA,SIRSA vs. PR.CIT, ROHTAK

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.149/Chd/2021 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year :2016-17 Sh. Rajeev Goyal Pr. Commissioner Of Income बनाम M/S R.K. Associates, Tax, Rohtak B.G. Complex Near Ganesh Dharam Kanta, Sirsa -125055, Haryana "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Aibpg7289A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

depreciation on furniture and fixtures, were held to be not allowable to the assessee in view of section 115BBE(2) of the Act. In respect of the remaining expenses claimed by the assessee at Rs. 6,37,238/- (7,57,238-1,20,000), in absence of any bills/vouchers in respect of these expenses, the same were held

SHRI RAJEEV GOYAL,SIRSA vs. PR.CIT, ROHTAK

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.149/Chd/2021 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year :2016-17 Sh. Rajeev Goyal Pr. Commissioner Of Income बनाम M/S R.K. Associates, Tax, Rohtak B.G. Complex Near Ganesh Dharam Kanta, Sirsa -125055, Haryana "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Aibpg7289A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

depreciation on furniture and fixtures, were held to be not allowable to the assessee in view of section 115BBE(2) of the Act. In respect of the remaining expenses claimed by the assessee at Rs. 6,37,238/- (7,57,238-1,20,000), in absence of any bills/vouchers in respect of these expenses, the same were held

M/S PARDEEP ISPAT(P) LTD.,SIRSA vs. PR.CIT, ROHTAK

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.149/Chd/2021 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year :2016-17 Sh. Rajeev Goyal Pr. Commissioner Of Income बनाम M/S R.K. Associates, Tax, Rohtak B.G. Complex Near Ganesh Dharam Kanta, Sirsa -125055, Haryana "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Aibpg7289A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

depreciation on furniture and fixtures, were held to be not allowable to the assessee in view of section 115BBE(2) of the Act. In respect of the remaining expenses claimed by the assessee at Rs. 6,37,238/- (7,57,238-1,20,000), in absence of any bills/vouchers in respect of these expenses, the same were held

PRIYA GOYAL,SIRSA vs. PR.CIT, ROHTAK

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.149/Chd/2021 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year :2016-17 Sh. Rajeev Goyal Pr. Commissioner Of Income बनाम M/S R.K. Associates, Tax, Rohtak B.G. Complex Near Ganesh Dharam Kanta, Sirsa -125055, Haryana "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Aibpg7289A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

depreciation on furniture and fixtures, were held to be not allowable to the assessee in view of section 115BBE(2) of the Act. In respect of the remaining expenses claimed by the assessee at Rs. 6,37,238/- (7,57,238-1,20,000), in absence of any bills/vouchers in respect of these expenses, the same were held

SHRI. TARSEM GOYAL,SIRSA vs. PR.CIT, ROHTAK

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.149/Chd/2021 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year :2016-17 Sh. Rajeev Goyal Pr. Commissioner Of Income बनाम M/S R.K. Associates, Tax, Rohtak B.G. Complex Near Ganesh Dharam Kanta, Sirsa -125055, Haryana "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Aibpg7289A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

depreciation on furniture and fixtures, were held to be not allowable to the assessee in view of section 115BBE(2) of the Act. In respect of the remaining expenses claimed by the assessee at Rs. 6,37,238/- (7,57,238-1,20,000), in absence of any bills/vouchers in respect of these expenses, the same were held

SH. PARSHOTAM GOYAL,SIRSA vs. PR.CIT, ROHTAK

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.149/Chd/2021 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year :2016-17 Sh. Rajeev Goyal Pr. Commissioner Of Income बनाम M/S R.K. Associates, Tax, Rohtak B.G. Complex Near Ganesh Dharam Kanta, Sirsa -125055, Haryana "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Aibpg7289A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

depreciation on furniture and fixtures, were held to be not allowable to the assessee in view of section 115BBE(2) of the Act. In respect of the remaining expenses claimed by the assessee at Rs. 6,37,238/- (7,57,238-1,20,000), in absence of any bills/vouchers in respect of these expenses, the same were held

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

depreciation\nallowance or any other\nallowance or deduction\nfor such assessment year\n(hereafter in this section\nand in sections 148 to 153\nreferred to as the\nrelevant\nyear).\nassessment\nUp to Finance Act 2020\n147. If the 5 [Assessing] Officer [has\nreason to believe”] that any income\nchargeable to tax has escaped\nassessment for any assessment year

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

depreciation\nallowance or any other\nallowance or deduction\nfor such assessment year\n(hereafter in this section\nand in sections 148 to 153\nreferred to as the\nrelevant assessment\nyear).\nUp to Finance Act 2020\n147. If the 5 [Assessing] Officer [has\nreason to believe”] that any income\nchargeable to tax has escaped\nassessment for any assessment year

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

depreciation\nallowance or any other\nallowance or deduction\nfor such assessment year\n(hereafter in this section\nand in sections 148 to 153\nreferred relevant\nyear).\nto\nas the\nassessment\nUp to Finance Act 2020\n147. If the 5 [Assessing] Officer [has\nreason to believe”] that any income\nchargeable to tax has escaped\nassessment for any assessment year

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

depreciation\nallowance or any other\nallowance or deduction\nfor such assessment year\n(hereafter in this section\nand in sections 148 to 153\nreferred relevant\nyear).\nas the assessment\n147. If the 5 [Assessing] Officer [has\nreason to believe”] that any income\nchargeable to tax has escaped\nassessment for any assessment year,\nhe may, subject to the provisions\nof sections

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA vs. GPG CATTLE FEED PVT. LTD., MOGA

In the result, the Revenue appeal is partly allowed and the Cross Objection of\nthe assessee is dismissed

69A, 69B and 69C as the\ncase may be.\"\nThe Hon'ble Bench further relied upon the Judgment of Khurana Mills Pvt. Ltd. of\nChandigarh Bench and finally held in para 10 as under:-\n“10. In the case of Sant Steel & Alloys (supra) the Hon'ble Tribunal found\non factual basis that the amount received by the assessee