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

section 69C mentioned on page no.29 & 76 of A-11 page no. 61 of A-15. 15.2 Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition holding as under: “It is undisputed that diaries were found in the course of search, admitted by the Shri Sanjay Kumar Sood, partner of the assessee-firm, to be in his handwriting and pertaining to business expenses

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

section 69C mentioned on page no.29 & 76 of A-11 page no. 61 of A-15. 15.2 Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition holding as under: “It is undisputed that diaries were found in the course of search, admitted by the Shri Sanjay Kumar Sood, partner of the assessee-firm, to be in his handwriting and pertaining to business expenses

SH. AJAY GOEL,SHIMLA vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

The appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

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

section 69C mentioned on page no.29 & 76 of A-11 page no. 61 of A-15. 15.2 Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition holding as under: “It is undisputed that diaries were found in the course of search, admitted by the Shri Sanjay Kumar Sood, partner of the assessee-firm, to be in his handwriting and pertaining to business expenses

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

section 69C mentioned on page no.29 & 76 of A-11 page no. 61 of A-15. 15.2 Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition holding as under: “It is undisputed that diaries were found in the course of search, admitted by the Shri Sanjay Kumar Sood, partner of the assessee-firm, to be in his handwriting and pertaining to business expenses

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

section 69C mentioned on page no.29 & 76 of A-11 page no. 61 of A-15. 15.2 Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition holding as under: “It is undisputed that diaries were found in the course of search, admitted by the Shri Sanjay Kumar Sood, partner of the assessee-firm, to be in his handwriting and pertaining to business expenses

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

section 69C mentioned on page no.29 & 76 of A-11 page no. 61 of A-15. 15.2 Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition holding as under: “It is undisputed that diaries were found in the course of search, admitted by the Shri Sanjay Kumar Sood, partner of the assessee-firm, to be in his handwriting and pertaining to business expenses

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

section 69C mentioned on page no.29 & 76 of A-11 page no. 61 of A-15. 15.2 Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition holding as under: “It is undisputed that diaries were found in the course of search, admitted by the Shri Sanjay Kumar Sood, partner of the assessee-firm, to be in his handwriting and pertaining to business expenses

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

section 69C mentioned on page no.29 & 76 of A-11 page no. 61 of A-15. 15.2 Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition holding as under: “It is undisputed that diaries were found in the course of search, admitted by the Shri Sanjay Kumar Sood, partner of the assessee-firm, to be in his handwriting and pertaining to business expenses

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

M/S SEL MANUFACTURING CO. LTD.,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-3, LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal is allowed

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

69C. 3. That he further gravely erred in making an addition of Rs. 16,27,714/- representing 2% of alleged bogus purchase of Rs. 8,13,85,737/-. 2. The following Additional Ground has also been raised: “That the order dated 29.12.2018 passed under section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the learned Commissioner of Income

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

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

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

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

ACIT, C-7, LUDHIANA vs. M/S CEIGALL INDIA LTD., LUDHIANA

In the result appeal of the Department is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the Cross Objection of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: The Appeal Is Finally Heard Or Disposed Off.

depreciation is to be allowed from the income determined by applying the net profit rate of 6.5%. 21. Vide ground no. 3 the grievance of the Department relates to the deletion of addition of Rs. 84,19,383/- made by the A.O. by invoking the provisions of section 69C

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

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

Section 69C of the Act, on account of alleged unaccounted ITA 655/CHD/2023 & ITA 610/CHD/2023 A.Y. 2015-16 33 commission paid by the assessee at the rate of 6.5% for the purpose of earning the Long Term Capital Gain. 7. The first observation of the ld. CIT(A), as challenged before us, is that the share price of M/s Maa Jagdambe

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

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

Section 69C of the Act, on account of alleged unaccounted ITA 655/CHD/2023 & ITA 610/CHD/2023 A.Y. 2015-16 33 commission paid by the assessee at the rate of 6.5% for the purpose of earning the Long Term Capital Gain. 7. The first observation of the ld. CIT(A), as challenged before us, is that the share price of M/s Maa Jagdambe

ACIT, CIRCLE 5(1),, CHANDIGARH vs. M/S VENUS REMEDIES LTD.,, CHANDIGARH

The appeal of the revenue stand dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.742/Chandi/2009 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) Acit Circle 5(1) M/S Venus Remedies Ltd. बनाम/ Vs. Sco 40-41, Sector 17-A Sco 39, Sector – 26 Chandigarh – 160017 Chandigarh "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacv-6524-H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant : Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal (Ca), Sh. Jaspal Sharma (Advocate)&Ms. Shruti Khandelwal (Advocate) – By Ld. Ars ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Yamini (Cit) - Ld. Dr (Virtual) सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 02.02.2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 09.03.2026 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1.1 Aforesaid Appeal For Assessment Year (Ay) 2006-07 Has Come Up For Hearing Before Us Pursuant To The Directions Of Hon’Ble Punjab & Haryana High Court In Revenue’S Appeal Ita No.81-2012 Dated 25-07-2024 Wherein Following Substantial Questions Of Law Were Determined: - 1. Weather On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Hon’Ble Itat Was Right In Upholding The Decision Of Ld. Cit(A) Who Directed The Ao To Reallocate The Expenses On Sales Ratio & To Reduce The Addition To Rs.142.24 Lacs As Against The Addition Of Rs.7,61,96,306/- On Account Of Unexplained Expenditure U/S 69C?

section 69C comes to Rs.16.38 crores.” 7. In our view, the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) in this behalf is quite reasonable. He is right in his observation that the NP rate in respect of Baddi unit was higher than Panchkula unit because the assessee had not properly allocated the expenses to Baddi unit

LAKHVIR KAUR,MOHALI, CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT/ACIT(CEN)-2 CHD, CHANDIGARH

In the result, both the above appeals of the Assessee are\nallowed

depreciation and interest on car loan.\n7. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld.\nAdditional Commissioner of Income Tax, Range Central failed to\napply due application of mind in giving approval u/s 153D of the\nAct and as such the order deserves to be quashed on this ground\nalone.\n8. That the appellant craves leave

LAKHVIR KAUR,MOHALI vs. DCIT/ACIT(CEN)-2, CHANDIGARH

In the result, both the above appeals of the Assessee are\nallowed

depreciation and interest on car loan.\n7. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld.\nAdditional Commissioner of Income Tax, Range Central failed to\napply due application of mind in giving approval u/s 153D of the\nAct and as such the order deserves to be quashed on this ground\nalone.\n8. That the appellant craves leave