M/S SHUBHAM COTTON MILLS PVT. LTD.,ELLENABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE, SIRSA

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

u/s 145(3) of the Act. 3.5 It is submitted that above submission is also fortified by tabular chart tabulated hereunder: I. It is submitted that sale realization of guar gum in the preceding years was as under: Amount Assessment Year Weight (in Sr. Average Rate qtls

M/S ASHA TECHNOLOGIES,SIRMOUR vs. ADDL. CIT, SOLAN

In the result, both the above appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed as aforesaid in respect of impugned orders dt

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

u/s 133A of the IT Act to find out the true facts of the case when there was no compliance and cooperation on the part of the assessee to prove its primary onus. And on the basis of survey only true facts of the case were ascertained which helped in ascertaining the factual reality. The assessing office collected information u/s

M/S ASHA TECHNOLOGIES,KALA AMB vs. ITO, SIRMOUR

In the result, both the above appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed as aforesaid in respect of impugned orders dt

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

u/s 133A of the IT Act to find out the true facts of the case when there was no compliance and cooperation on the part of the assessee to prove its primary onus. And on the basis of survey only true facts of the case were ascertained which helped in ascertaining the factual reality. The assessing office collected information u/s

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.

133A was conducted by the Department on 14/09/2018 on the premises of M/s Ratna Resorts, Dhuri. That during the survey proceeding, accounts were examined and were verified with the functions booking details. On verification, it was found and pointed out that the charges shown in the books are quite less as compare to booking slips and the expenses made

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

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

u/s 133A of the IT Act on the business premises of the assessee, the assessee surrendered an amount of Rs. 3.50 crore over and above the normal business income. The additional income was surrendered on account of investment, money, expense which could not be explained or was not reflected in the books of accounts and also certain receivables were

SHRI BALBIR SINGH VERMA,SHIMLA vs. PR.CIT, SHIMLA

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

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

u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax is bad in law in as much as the date of order as per the impugned order is 19.03.2020 and which has been signed without mentioning of a DIN. As per the separate order, the Learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax has mentioned

M/S SHRI RAM CYLINDERS (UNIT II),CHANDIGARH vs. ITO, W-2(1), CHANDIGARH

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

133A conducted on 26/27.02.2014, Sh. Makhan Lal Verma Maintenance Foreman of the assessee firm made the survey party to prepare inventory of machinery at the business premises of M/s Shri Ram Cylinders Baddi, which was the common machinery being used by both the units that is Unit-I & Unit-ll commonly wherein year of purchase has also been mentioned

M/S SHRI RAM CYLINDERS (UNIT II),CHANDIGARH vs. ITO, W-2(1), CHANDIGARH

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

133A conducted on 26/27.02.2014, Sh. Makhan Lal Verma Maintenance Foreman of the assessee firm made the survey party to prepare inventory of machinery at the business premises of M/s Shri Ram Cylinders Baddi, which was the common machinery being used by both the units that is Unit-I & Unit-ll commonly wherein year of purchase has also been mentioned

M/S SHRI RAM CYLINDERS (UNIT II),CHANDIGARH vs. ITO, W-2(1), CHANDIGARH

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

133A conducted on 26/27.02.2014, Sh. Makhan Lal Verma Maintenance Foreman of the assessee firm made the survey party to prepare inventory of machinery at the business premises of M/s Shri Ram Cylinders Baddi, which was the common machinery being used by both the units that is Unit-I & Unit-ll commonly wherein year of purchase has also been mentioned

M/S SHRI RAM CYLINDERS (UNIT II),CHANDIGARH vs. ITO, W-2(1), CHANDIGARH

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

133A conducted on 26/27.02.2014, Sh. Makhan Lal Verma Maintenance Foreman of the assessee firm made the survey party to prepare inventory of machinery at the business premises of M/s Shri Ram Cylinders Baddi, which was the common machinery being used by both the units that is Unit-I & Unit-ll commonly wherein year of purchase has also been mentioned

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

depreciation on the same. However, in the case in hand, a perusal of the report of the government valuer reveals that the valuer has taken the cost of construction / Fair market value as on 31.8.2006. It is not the case of the valuer that the building was newly constructed on the date, rather, the valuer has mentioned categorically that

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

depreciation on the same. However, in the case in hand, a perusal of the report of the government valuer reveals that the valuer has taken the cost of construction / Fair market value as on 31.8.2006. It is not the case of the valuer that the building was newly constructed on the date, rather, the valuer has mentioned categorically that

M/S HOTEL OAK VALLEY RESIDENCY,CHAMBA 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

depreciation on the same. However, in the case in hand, a perusal of the report of the government valuer reveals that the valuer has taken the cost of construction / Fair market value as on 31.8.2006. It is not the case of the valuer that the building was newly constructed on the date, rather, the valuer has mentioned categorically that

M/S FASTWAY TRANSMISSION (P) LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-II, CHANDIGARH

In the result the captioned appeals of the assessee are

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sanjay Gargआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.547/Chd/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14

survey u/s 133A or under section 131 of the Act, reaffirmed that the transaction was that of a loan. L. That the assessee through letter dated 24.2.2014 addressed to DDIT(Investigation) had stated that it had shown the lease finance as unsecured loan in its books. M. That CISCO is a Non Banking Finance Company (NBFC) and its main activity

M/S FASTWAY TRANSMISSION (P) LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-II, CHANDIGARH

In the result the captioned appeals of the assessee are

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sanjay Gargआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.547/Chd/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14

survey u/s 133A or under section 131 of the Act, reaffirmed that the transaction was that of a loan. L. That the assessee through letter dated 24.2.2014 addressed to DDIT(Investigation) had stated that it had shown the lease finance as unsecured loan in its books. M. That CISCO is a Non Banking Finance Company (NBFC) and its main activity

M/S FASTWAY TRANSMISSION (P) LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. ACIT, CHANDIGARH

In the result the captioned appeals of the assessee are

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sanjay Gargआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.547/Chd/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14

survey u/s 133A or under section 131 of the Act, reaffirmed that the transaction was that of a loan. L. That the assessee through letter dated 24.2.2014 addressed to DDIT(Investigation) had stated that it had shown the lease finance as unsecured loan in its books. M. That CISCO is a Non Banking Finance Company (NBFC) and its main activity

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 amounting to Rs. 70,000/- on the building. 5. Notwithstanding, the above said grounds of appeal, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) has wrongly confirmed the order passed u/s 143(3). 6. That the Ld. CIT(A), Ludhiana has erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in invoking the provision of Section 68 of the Income

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

133A of the Act was carried out at the business premises on 10.9.2015. During the course of survey, some excess cash, unaccounted loans and ITA Nos. 149 to 152, 154 & 157-c-2021 Rajeev Goyal & others 22 advances to various parties, unexplained investment in furniture and fixtures were found. The assessee voluntarily offered surrender of additional income