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

PRIYA 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

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

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

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

SURINDER KUMAR,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, LUDHIANA

The appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Itat Shall Not Be Filed In Cases Where The Tax Effect Does Not Exceed The Monetary Limit Of Rs. 20 Lacs. The Tax Will Not Include Any Interest Thereon. It Is Further Clarified That If In The Case Of An Assessee, Disputed Issues Arise In More Than One Assessment Year, Appeal Can Be Filed In Respect Of Such Assessment Year Or Years In Which The Tax Effect In Respect Of Disputed Issues Exceeds The Monetary Limit So Specified.

unexplained cash credits be considered as fully allowable. iv) That entire car expenses has wrongly been disallowed by the Hon’ble CIT(A). v) That telephone expenses of Rs. 21,450/- has wrongly been disallowed by Ld. A.O. and confirmed by Hon’ble CIT(A). vi) That the addition on account of disallowance of depreciation

INCOME TAX OFFICER, LUDHIANA vs. SH SURENDER KUMAR PROP, LUDHIANA

The appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Itat Shall Not Be Filed In Cases Where The Tax Effect Does Not Exceed The Monetary Limit Of Rs. 20 Lacs. The Tax Will Not Include Any Interest Thereon. It Is Further Clarified That If In The Case Of An Assessee, Disputed Issues Arise In More Than One Assessment Year, Appeal Can Be Filed In Respect Of Such Assessment Year Or Years In Which The Tax Effect In Respect Of Disputed Issues Exceeds The Monetary Limit So Specified.

unexplained cash credits be considered as fully allowable. iv) That entire car expenses has wrongly been disallowed by the Hon’ble CIT(A). v) That telephone expenses of Rs. 21,450/- has wrongly been disallowed by Ld. A.O. and confirmed by Hon’ble CIT(A). vi) That the addition on account of disallowance of depreciation

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

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)

unexplained cash credits and restricting the same to the estimated net 6 A.Y. 2013-14 profit earned. The Ld.CIT(Appeals) at para 4.6 of his order, we find, has observed as under: “4.6 I have gone through the facts of the case, written submission filed by the appellant, remand report of the AO, rejoinder filed by the appellant

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

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

unexplained Cash Credits. That the addition sustained by the Id. CIT(A) are against the facts and 3. circumstances of the case. 4. That the Worthy CIT(A) has erred in concluding that the Source of Rs. 5,65,000/- have not been proved. That the Appellant craves leave to add/amend any ground of appeal during 5. the course

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