DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S MOOL JI DIAMONDS, CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

disallowance u/s 68 r.w.s.115BBE of the Act. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and circumstances of the case in allowing the highly disproportionate amounts of cash deposited

MUKESH KUMAR,LUDHIANA vs. ITO WARD 2(1),, LUDHIANA

In the result, Assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 917/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Mukesh Kumar, Ito, Prop. Ravindra Chemical & बनाम Ito Ward 2(1), General Agencies, Ludhiana Vs. Talab Bazar, Ludhiana "थायी लेखा सं./ Pan No: Acjpk8421A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

cash and its deposit in the bank account cannot be disallowed. 6. In this case, even the books of account

SH. AVINASH RAJTA,SHIMLA vs. ITO, WARD, SHIMLA

In the result, out of addition of Rs 365,132/-, addition of Rs 3,33,385/- is deleted and the remaining addition of Rs 31,747/- is sustained and the ground of appeal is thus partly allowed

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 654/CHD/2023 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Avinash Rajta Chauhan Cottage, Dhalli Near Inder Nagar, Shimla H.P. 171012 बनाम स्थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO:ASGPR5069J अपीलार्थी/Appellant The ITO Ward- Shimla H.P. 171001 प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से/Assessee by : राजस्व की ओर से/ Revenue by : Shri Vishal Mohan, Advocate Shri Vivek Vardhan, JCIT सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 01/01/2025 उदघोषणा की तारीख/Date of Pronounceme

cash so deposited stand duly explained and it was submitted that the addition so made and sustained by the ld CIT(A) may be directed to be deleted. 3. Regarding Ground No. 2, our reference was drawn to the findings of the AO which are contained at para 5.2 of the assessment order contents thereof read as under: “5.2 Difference

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH vs. ATMA RAM JEWELLERS, CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

depositing cash regularly. AO concluded\nthat appellant has simply introduced his own unaccounted cash into his cash\nbook under the guise of cash sale by generating sale bills with fictitious name\nof value below Rs.2,00,000/- per sale bill. Thus AO disallowed

SH. PARDEEP KUMAR,PANCHKULA vs. ITO, WARD 3, PANCHKULA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the addition is restricted to Rs

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

disallowed. e. Opening cash in hand Assessee has submitted as under:- During the year under consideration the assessee has opening cash in hand of Rs. 1,72,500/-which was not considered by the Ld. Assessing officer. The Cash in hand for AY 2011-12 is already assessed in which closing cash in hand

INCOME TAX OFFICER, PARWANOO vs. KAMLA OLEO PRIVATE LIMITED, BAROTIWALA

The appeal stand dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Laliet Kumar & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.897/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Ito M/S Kamla Oleo Private Limited बनाम/ Parwanoo, Village Buranwala, Barotiwala Vs. Himachal Pradesh-173220. Solan, Himachal Pradesh. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aadck-7696-Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Sudhir Sehgal (Adv.). – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Vivek Vardhan (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21-04-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 20-05-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Revenue For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18 Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax [Cit(A)] Dated 25-06-2024 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S. 143(3) Of The Act On 29-12-2019. The Issues That Arise In The Appeal Are – (I) Addition Of Unexplained Cash Credit U/S 68; (Ii) Disallowance U/S 14A; (Iii) Addition Of Unexplained Credit U/S 69A. Having Heard Rival Submissions & Upon Perusal Of Case Records, The Appeal Is Disposed-Off As Under. The Assessee Being

Disallowance u/s 14A; (iii) Addition of unexplained credit u/s 69A. Having heard rival submissions and upon perusal of case records, the appeal is disposed-off as under. The assessee being resident corporate assessee is stated to be engaged in manufacturing activities. 2. Addition of unexplained cash credit u/s 68 2.1 It transpired that the assessee deposited

BANUR BROTHER ,PATIALA vs. ITO-WARD-1, AMBALA

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed as and by way of remand to Ld

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

cash deposits and upheld Ld. AO's decision for addition under section 69A/69C of the Act. The CIT(A) should have accurately framed the order by considering the case's facts. It appears that CIT(A) relied solely on the remand report without thoroughly analyzing the facts presented during the appellate proceedings. 2.3.7 That in the remand report

GUJRANWALA JEWELS,AMBALA CITY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2, AMBALA CANTT

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Dr Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 700/Chd/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Gujranwala Jewels, Vs. The Ito, बनाम Ambala Whole Sale Cloth Ward-2, Market, Ambala Kalka Chowk, Ambala "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aapfg8259G अपीलाथ" ./ Appellant ""यथ" / Respondent ( Virtual Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Sh. Rohit Goel, C.A. राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 06.05.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 07.05.2024 आदेश/Order Per Dr. Krinwant Sahay, A.M.:

disallowance of cash deposit based on the same set of books of account. The ld. CIT(A) has also not brought

SH. GURDEEP SINGH,SIRMOUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHANDIGARH-1

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Appeal Is Finally Disposed Off.

cash deposits made by you to the tune of Rs.2,39,00,000/- deposited in SBI and Rs.17,45,000/- deposited in Axis Bank may not be treated as unexplained and added to your income for the year under consideration. ii) As per computation you have claimed deduction u/s 80C at Rs.1

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)

Deposit Receipts (FDRs), while Rs.24,00,000/- were made through transfers from the Cash Credit (CC) account of the hospital. 13.2 This detailed reconciliation establishes a direct nexus for Rs.41,50,000/- through identifiable FDR redemptions. The balance payments made from the CC account can be accepted as explained only to the extent substantiated by available funds and banking records

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)

deposited in cash without any justification. 12. That the learned CIT(A) has wrongly upheld addition of Rs. 45,00,000/- u/s 68 of the Act on surmises and conjectures. 13. That the learned CIT(A) has wrongly upheld disallowance

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)

deposited in cash without any justification. 12. That the learned CIT(A) has wrongly upheld addition of Rs. 45,00,000/- u/s 68 of the Act on surmises and conjectures. 13. That the learned CIT(A) has wrongly upheld disallowance

INCOME TAX OFFICER, PARWANOO vs. AJAY KADIAN, KALA AMB (SIRMOUR)

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stand dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.660/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22) Ito Shri Ajay Kadian बनाम/ Sco 35F, Hpmc Road Block-O, Ras Industries, Trilokpur Road Vs. Sector-2, Parwanoo (H.P.) - 173220 Kala, Amb. Sirmour (H.P.) 173030 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Bndpk-3045-A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Harry Rikhy (Advocate) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Manav Bansal (Cit) - Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16.02.2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24.02.2026 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Revenue For Assessment Year (Ay) 2021-22 Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac [Cit(A)] Dated 29-03-2024 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S 143(3) Of The Act On 26-12-2022. From Grounds Of Appeal, It Is Quite Evident That The Issues That Fall For Our Consideration Are – (I) Addition On Account Of Alleged Bogus Purchase; & (Ii) Addition Of Cash Deposit & Time

deposited within a short period of time. The FDR is also sourced out of earlier cash withdrawals and FDR has been liquidated prematurely within two days only. The assessee has furnished the bank statements during assessment proceedings which have not been disputed. Therefore, these twin additions have rightly been deleted by Ld. CIT(A). We order

INCOME TAX OFFICER, LUDHIANA vs. AAKRITI JAIN, LUDHIANA

In the result, Departmental appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Dr Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 481/Chd/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 The Ito, Vs. Aakriti Jain, Ward-7, Shop No. 2B, बनाम Ludhiana Lfg Mall Plaza, Mall Road, Ludhiana 141001 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Akrpj0192P अपीलाथ" ./ Appellant ""यथ" / Respondent

disallowance u/s 68 of the Act amounting to Rs. 13,49,76,182/- and addition on account of interest paid of Rs. 94,40,163/-. 4. In the assessment order, the Assessing Officer has given his finding that during the year under consideration, the Assessee had made cash deposits

JARNAIL SINGH,BILASPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are disposed off in light of aforesaid directions

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

cash deposited in the bank account as well as trading in penny scrips was inquired from the assessee. The assessee submitted pointwise reply dated 30th of October 2018 in respect of the queries raised by the Assessing officer. The Assessing officer, thereafter, after due examination and verification of the explanation so submitted by the assessee as corroborated by the bank

JARNAIL SINGH,BILASPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1,, CHANDIGARH

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are disposed off in light of aforesaid directions

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

cash deposited in the bank account as well as trading in penny scrips was inquired from the assessee. The assessee submitted pointwise reply dated 30th of October 2018 in respect of the queries raised by the Assessing officer. The Assessing officer, thereafter, after due examination and verification of the explanation so submitted by the assessee as corroborated by the bank

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

deposits in the copy of cash account (paperbook page 12). 26.1 As per the Income Account on paperbook page 46, the assessee company has Total Receipt of Rs. 15,50,000/-, after deduction expenses of Rs. 1,00,000/- and an amount f Rs. 5,00,000/- as cheque issued but not presented for payment, the company has declared income

OM PARKASH,LUDHIANA vs. ITO, W-3, KHANNA

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Krinwant Sahay

cash deposits of Rs. 4,44,69,200/- were made. The AO will conduct an enquiry, and in case required, he will take help of Forensic expert as well and, accordingly, will proceed according to the law. Accordingly, this issue in the assessee’s appeal is remanded back to the file of the AO. 7. As regards to the other