M/S FAMINA KNIT FABS,LUDHIANA vs. ACIT, C-3, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

depreciation from the surrendered income. 7 A.Y.2014-15 & A.Y.2013-14 4. That provisions of section 68, 69, 69A, 69B and 69C, 72 and 115BBE

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)

69B of the Act and the same has to be assessed to tax under the head “business income”. In absence of deeming provisions, the question of application of section 115BBE doesn’t arise and normal tax rate shall apply. The AO is thus directed to assess the income under the head “Income from Business/profession” and apply the normal rate

DCIT, LUDHIANA vs. M/S MARSHAL MACHINES PVT. LTD., LUDHIANA

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2013-14

69B & 69C of the Income Tax Act, 1961.” 4. The sum of the facts of the case and the arguments taken before the Ld. CIT(A) and the rationale relied upon by the Ld. CIT(A) while deleting the addition is as under: The issue relates to not allowing the business loss

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

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 provisions

KHANNA INFRABUILD PRIVATE LIMITED ,LUDHIANA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL CIRCLE)-2, LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA

In the result, the ground of appeal is allowed

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

69B of the Act. In absence of any other material on record, addition was correctly deleted. Tax Appeal is, therefore, dismissed.” 11. A perusal of the above judgments would indicate that mere valuation report is not sufficient to conclude that the assessee has made unexplained investment. From perusal of the assessment, nowhere it reveals that inspite of search, Revenue

KHANNA INFRABUILD PRIVATE LIMITED 2000-1A, SUKHDEV NAGAR FEROZEPUR ROAD, LUDHIANA,LUDHIANA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA

In the result, the ground of appeal is allowed

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

69B of the Act. In absence of any other material on record, addition was correctly deleted. Tax Appeal is, therefore, dismissed.” 11. A perusal of the above judgments would indicate that mere valuation report is not sufficient to conclude that the assessee has made unexplained investment. From perusal of the assessment, nowhere it reveals that inspite of search, Revenue

KHANNA INFRABUILD PRIVATE LIMITED ,LUDHIANA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL CIRCLE)-2 LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA

In the result, the ground of appeal is allowed

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

69B of the Act. In absence of any other material on record, addition was correctly deleted. Tax Appeal is, therefore, dismissed.” 11. A perusal of the above judgments would indicate that mere valuation report is not sufficient to conclude that the assessee has made unexplained investment. From perusal of the assessment, nowhere it reveals that inspite of search, Revenue

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

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

M/S AJAY KUMAR SOOD ENGINEERS & CONTRACTORS,SHIMLA vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

The appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

depreciation. This explanation did not firid favor and so the AO was prompted to cause the assessee as to why the trading results for the contractual business should not be rejected. Getting no response, AO proceeded to recast the trading result by applying the GP rate of 10% on the total contractual receipts and thereafter reducing the gross profit declared

SH. AJAY GOEL,SHIMLA vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

The appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

depreciation. This explanation did not firid favor and so the AO was prompted to cause the assessee as to why the trading results for the contractual business should not be rejected. Getting no response, AO proceeded to recast the trading result by applying the GP rate of 10% on the total contractual receipts and thereafter reducing the gross profit declared

M/S AJAY KUMAR SOOD ENGINEERS & CONTRACTORS,SHIMLA vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

The appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

depreciation. This explanation did not firid favor and so the AO was prompted to cause the assessee as to why the trading results for the contractual business should not be rejected. Getting no response, AO proceeded to recast the trading result by applying the GP rate of 10% on the total contractual receipts and thereafter reducing the gross profit declared

M/S AJAY KUMAR SOOD ENGINEERS & CONTRACTORS,SHIMLA vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

The appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

depreciation. This explanation did not firid favor and so the AO was prompted to cause the assessee as to why the trading results for the contractual business should not be rejected. Getting no response, AO proceeded to recast the trading result by applying the GP rate of 10% on the total contractual receipts and thereafter reducing the gross profit declared

M/S AJAY KUMAR SOOD ENGINEERS & CONTRACTORS,SHIMLA vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

The appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

depreciation. This explanation did not firid favor and so the AO was prompted to cause the assessee as to why the trading results for the contractual business should not be rejected. Getting no response, AO proceeded to recast the trading result by applying the GP rate of 10% on the total contractual receipts and thereafter reducing the gross profit declared

M/S AJAY KUMAR SOOD ENGINEERS & CONTRACTORS,SHIMLA vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

The appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

depreciation. This explanation did not firid favor and so the AO was prompted to cause the assessee as to why the trading results for the contractual business should not be rejected. Getting no response, AO proceeded to recast the trading result by applying the GP rate of 10% on the total contractual receipts and thereafter reducing the gross profit declared

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. M/S AJAY KUMAR SOOD ENGINEERS AND CONTRACTORS, SHIMLA

The appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

depreciation. This explanation did not firid favor and so the AO was prompted to cause the assessee as to why the trading results for the contractual business should not be rejected. Getting no response, AO proceeded to recast the trading result by applying the GP rate of 10% on the total contractual receipts and thereafter reducing the gross profit declared

M/S AJAY KUMAR SOOD ENGINEERS & CONTRACTORS,SHIMLA vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

The appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

depreciation. This explanation did not firid favor and so the AO was prompted to cause the assessee as to why the trading results for the contractual business should not be rejected. Getting no response, AO proceeded to recast the trading result by applying the GP rate of 10% on the total contractual receipts and thereafter reducing the gross profit declared

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE II, CHANDIGARH vs. M/S SAB INDUSTRIES LIMITED, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Ms. Annapurna Gupta

depreciation not allowed against this surrendered income. The AO has not accepted the contention of the appellant in the assessment order due to following reasons:- (i) The AO has stated that the recoverable income of Rs. 11 crores is from real estate transactions may be true but the fact remains that on the due date of search, the appellant

M/S OAK VALLEY RESIDENCY,DALHOUSIE vs. ITO, BANIKHET

In the result this appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sanjay Gargआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 772/Chd/2012 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08

69B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') made by the Assessing Officer to the income of the assessee. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is running a small hotel at Dalhousie. A survey was conducted

M/S OAK VALLEY RESIDENCY,DALHOUISE vs. ITO, DALHOUSIE AT, BANIKHET

In the result this appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sanjay Gargआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 772/Chd/2012 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08

69B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') made by the Assessing Officer to the income of the assessee. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is running a small hotel at Dalhousie. A survey was conducted