ITO, W-4, CHANDIGARH vs. SANT RAM SHARMA, PANCHKULA

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Ms.Diva Singh & Ms.Annapurna Guptathe Income Tax Officer, Vs. Sh.Sant Ram Sharma, Ward 4, H.No.883, Sector 8, Panchkula. Panchkula. Pan: Ampps1995K (Appellant) (Respondent)

undisclosed sources and added the same to the income of the assessee. 5. During appellate proceedings, the assessee submitted detailed explanation which is reproduced at para 4..1 of the CIT(Appeals)’s order, alongwith confirmations from M/s Gupta Tent House, Pinjore regarding payment of the same made by him. The assessee also contended that in the succeeding year

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 losses may be allowed against the surrendered income of Rs.1,21,85,000/- being a business income. ITA-848&986/CHD/2017 A.Y. 2013-2014 Page 2 of 11 The assessee craves leave to add, alter and amend any of the above grounds of appeal before the same is heard or disposed of. It is respectfully prayed that the relief

WINSOME TEXTILE INDUSTRIES LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1), CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

undisclosed sources and which was brought to tax by invoking the provisions of Section 68 of the Act. The AO further did not allow the set off of the income so assessed against the brought forward losses/ unabsorbed depreciation

SMT. ASHA GANDHI,LUDHIANA vs. ITO, W-II(1), LUDHIANA

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

undisclosed income under section 68 read with section 115BBE Tax Act as the assessee could not give satisfactory reply for the c Rs.5,65,000/- made in HDFC Bank. As the assessee has furnished inaccurate particular of her income, therefore, penalty proceedings u/s 27 3 Section 274 of the I.T.Act, 1961 are initiated separately.” 3. The assessee carried the issue

ANISH GARG,PATIALA vs. ITO WARD-4, PATIALA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

undisclosed income into exempt income. How the AO has reached\nsuch a conclusive finding and basis thereof is again not borne out from the\nreasons so recorded by him. (Para 15)\n5.6 Further, reliance was drawn to the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High\nCourt in case of M/s Hemant Traders vs. ITO (in Writ Petition

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 of the IT. Act, 1961 have been misconstrued and misapplied in the Appellant's case 5. The Appellant craves leave to add, amend, modify and/or add new Grounds of Appeal before the Appeal is heard and disposed

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)

undisclosed income. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 are initiated for concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.” 10. Against the said findings and the order of the AO, the assessee moved in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) wherein the Ld. CIT(A) directed the AO to apply net profit of 5.74% which

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

undisclosed income u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without even issuing any show cause notice to the appellant company for treating it as a shell company. Also, the Learned Assessing Officer neither issued a show cause notice nor mentioned a single word about shell company in any of the questionnaires sent by ITA 4/CHD/2023

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)

undisclosed income u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, without even issuing any Show Cause Notice to the assessee company for treating it as a shell company. Also, the ld. Assessing Officer neither issued a Show Cause Notice nor mentioned a single word about shell company in any of the questionnaires sent by him on 14.08.2019 (page

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)

undisclosed income u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, without even issuing any Show Cause Notice to the assessee company for treating it as a shell company. Also, the ld. Assessing Officer neither issued a Show Cause Notice nor mentioned a single word about shell company in any of the questionnaires sent by him on 14.08.2019 (page

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)

undisclosed sources, therefore, the substantive addition in the hands of the assessee company was not justified. The issue is squarely covered by the various decisions including the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of “CIT vs Bharat Engineering & Construction Co.” (supra) as referred to above by the ld. Counsel for the assessee in the written submissions

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)

undisclosed sources, therefore, the substantive addition in the hands of the assessee company was not justified. The issue is squarely covered by the various decisions including the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of “CIT vs Bharat Engineering & Construction Co.” (supra) as referred to above by the ld. Counsel for the assessee in the written submissions

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)

undisclosed sources, therefore, the substantive addition in the hands of the assessee company was not justified. The issue is squarely covered by the various decisions including the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of “CIT vs Bharat Engineering & Construction Co.” (supra) as referred to above by the ld. Counsel for the assessee in the written submissions

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHANDIGARH vs. WINSOME TEXTILE INDUSTRIES LTD, CHANDIGARH

undisclosed sources and which was brought to\ntax by invoking the provisions of Section 68 of the Act. The AO further did not\nallow the set off of the income so assessed against the brought forward losses/\nunabsorbed depreciation

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

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

depreciation of Rs. 1,23,61,513/- which can also be set off against the balance taxable income of Rs. 1,06,09,974/- after at after deducting surrendered amount of Rs. 3.50 crore from the returned business income of Rs. 2,43,90,026/-. The AO was not satisfied with the reply of the assessee and not allowing

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

undisclosed income u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without even issuing any show cause notice to the appellant company for treating it as a shell company. Also, the Learned Assessing Officer neither issued a show cause notice nor mentioned a single word about shell company in any of the questionnaires sent by him on 19.08.2019 (page

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)

depreciation, maintenance costs, and insurance for vehicles, one of which was a Toyota Fortuner. The AO suspected that the vehicles might have been used partly for personal purposes and not entirely for business. As a result, and in line with decisions made in previous years, the AO disallowed an amount of Rs.60,000 on an ad-hoc basis from

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

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

undisclosed\ninvestments or income. A plea was also raised for telescoping the surrendered stock\nagainst other alleged unaccounted sales and receipts. Reliance was placed on certain\njudicial precedents where surrendered stock had been treated as business income.\n5.2\nAfter considering these submissions, the Ld. CIT(A) had accepted the assessee's\ncontention and held that the surrendered amount of Rs.2