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

unexplained cash credits u/s 68 of the Act. It was also submitted that the bank account does not constitute “books of account” of the assessee, as has been held in following cases: i) 113 TTJ 178 (Del) Mayawati vs. DCIT Affirmed by Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT vs. Mayawati reported

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

unexplained cash credits u/s 68 of the Act. It was also submitted that the bank account does not constitute “books of account” of the assessee, as has been held in following cases: i) 113 TTJ 178 (Del) Mayawati vs. DCIT Affirmed by Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT vs. Mayawati reported

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

unexplained cash credits u/s 68 of the Act. It was also submitted that the bank account does not constitute “books of account” of the assessee, as has been held in following cases: i) 113 TTJ 178 (Del) Mayawati vs. DCIT Affirmed by Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT vs. Mayawati reported

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

unexplained cash credits u/s 68 of the Act. It was also submitted that the bank account does not constitute “books of account” of the assessee, as has been held in following cases: i) 113 TTJ 178 (Del) Mayawati vs. DCIT Affirmed by Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT vs. Mayawati reported

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)

credit payment to the parties concerned, cash available with it on the date of deposit in respective bank accounts as well. Merely furnishing the information in changed performa/format/chart for its own satisfaction, for which Information has already been furnished before the Assessing Officer during essessment proceedings' does not constitute an evidence. The information produced now during appellate proceedings are hypothetical

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)

cash by the appellant without any justification. 8. That the learned CIT(A) has wrongly upheld addition of Rs. 14,20,000/- u/s 68 of the Act on surmises and conjectures. 9. That the learned CIT(A) has wrongly upheld disallowance of loss of Rs.50,231/- without discussing the same in the impugned order. 10. That the learned

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)

cash by the appellant without any justification. 8. That the learned CIT(A) has wrongly upheld addition of Rs. 14,20,000/- u/s 68 of the Act on surmises and conjectures. 9. That the learned CIT(A) has wrongly upheld disallowance of loss of Rs.50,231/- without discussing the same in the impugned order. 10. That the learned

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.

cash and building exp. As surrender u/s 133A on the credit side of Profit & loss Account. iii) That the return of income was accompanied with audited trading and profit & loss account& balance sheet, tax audit report of M/s SRatna Resorts. The income surrendered was not shown in the books of accounts/ rather were taken directly to profit & loss account

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

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

cash credits in the books of account of an assessee; that the bank account of the appellant cannot be considered as the books of account of the appellant; that the provision of section 69A were squarely applicable to the facts of the case; that the ITA 655/CHD/2023 & ITA 610/CHD/2023 A.Y. 2015-16 32 appellant had been found

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

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

cash credits in the books of account of an assessee; that the bank account of the appellant cannot be considered as the books of account of the appellant; that the provision of section 69A were squarely applicable to the facts of the case; that the ITA 655/CHD/2023 & ITA 610/CHD/2023 A.Y. 2015-16 32 appellant had been found

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)

Cash Flow Statements, explanation of each debit and credit entry in the bank account of the assessee company and also filed the balance sheet, affidavit, confirmations, bank statement, ITA 3 &144/CHD/2023 A.Y. 2014-15 60 ITRs, balance sheets and copies of accounts, etc. However, the AO did not consider each credit entry separately, as was required to be done under

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)

Cash Flow Statements, explanation of each debit and credit entry in the bank account of the assessee company and also filed the balance sheet, affidavit, confirmations, bank statement, ITA 3 &144/CHD/2023 A.Y. 2014-15 60 ITRs, balance sheets and copies of accounts, etc. However, the AO did not consider each credit entry separately, as was required to be done under

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

cash deposits in bank, the CIT(A) has confirmed additions to the extent of Rs.1,03,63,000/-, to the extent of Rs.79.50 lacs, holding that the immediate sources of these credits have not been explained in the hands of Shri Keshav Garg, who advanced the money, when he had shown income of only Rs.6

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)

cash, stock etc. You had disclosed an additional income of Rs.65 lakhs other than normal income. Your profit & loss account showed, however, that you credited only Rs 60 Lakhs on account of surrendered income instead of Rs.65 Lakhs to your P&L account. The net profit shown is the P&L account by you was Rs.1,03,53.180/- From

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

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)

depreciation or raise any demand in respect of payment of Tax on and before the NCLT Approval Date and the same shall stand settled at Nil value. 10. A perusal of the above prescription of the Resolution Plan shows that it provides that on making payment towards operational creditors in terms of the Plan, no Operational Creditor shall be entitled

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

depreciation of car without any discussion in the Appellate Order. 11. That the Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or withdraw any grounds of appeal before the final hearing. ITA 738/CHD/2022 A.Y. 2016-17 3 3. The assessee has also raised the following additional grounds : 1. That the approval u/s 153D was granted by the JCIT without application

BHUPINDER SINGH SON OF SH. GURMUKH SINGH ,PUNJAB vs. THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CHANDIGARH-1, C.R BUILDING HIMALAYA MARG, SECTOR 17-E, CHANDIGARH, PUNJAB

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

depreciation on forging press after being satisfied with explanation of assesse which was supported by documents, Commissioner was not justified in invoking jurisdiction under section 263. Ved Parkash Contractors Vs. PCIt as reported in (2017) 88 taxmann.com 393 (Chandigarh – Trib) The order of the Assessing Officer may be brief and cryptic but that by itself is not a sufficient reason