SURINDER KAUR,ROPAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2) , ROPAR

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

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

disallowance of expenses. 8. That on facts, circumstances and legal position of the case, Worthy CIT(A) has erred in confirming addition of Rs. 2,95,758/- made by the Ld. AO on account of difference in cash deposited during demonetization

INCOME TAX OFICER, BC BAZAR vs. THE KESRI UNION FARMERS SERVICE CO-OP SOCIETY LTD, AMBALA

In the result appeal of Department / Revenue is dismissed

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

disallowed to exchange/deposit of SBN vide circular dated 14.11.2016. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) has erred on observing that similar issue where co-op societies had accepted old notes form members post demonetization

THE KHOJKIPUR PRIMARY AGRICULTURE COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.,AMBALA vs. ITO, WARD-5, AMBALA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./Ita No 865/Chd/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 The Khojkipur Primary Agriculture Vs. The Ito, Cooperataive Society Ltd. Ward-5, Vpo Khojkipur, Ambala District Ambala, Haryana "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Aadat5290K अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

demonetized notes collected by the assessee from its members would not be hit by the provisions of section 68 of the Act in 865-c-2023- The Khojkipur Primary Agriculture Cooperative Society Ltd., District Amabla 5 the facts and circumstances of the case. Accordingly, I set aside the order passed by Ld. CIT(A) on this issue and direct

JAI KARAN SINGH,MOHALI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(4), MOHALI , MOHALI

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

Bench: JUSTICE (RETD.) C.V. BHADANG (President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

disallowing the deduction claimed u/s 80C in respect of deposit in PPF a/c. The assessee is a retired Commander from Indian Navy. He was employed as Manager in Akash Canteen Stores Depot(CSD) Ex-Serviceman Canteen at Una, Himachal Pradesh and was staying in Una. The canteen is run by the Ministry of Defence under Commanding Officer 4 Assam Rifles

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 cash of Rs.62 Lacs

INCOME TAX OFFICER, LUDHIANA vs. ANUP BANSAL, LUDHIANA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 671/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 The Ito, Sh. Anoop Bansal, Ward-1(5), बनाम Motia Marvel, Ludhiana Barewal Road, Backside, Vs. Gurudev Hospital, Ludhiana "थायी लेखा सं./ Pan No: Ahgpb5674C अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent ( Physical Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : None राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Smt. Geetinder Mann, Cit Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 16.07.2025 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 01.09.2025 आदेश/Order Per Krinwant Sahay, Am : Appeal In This Case Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 09.04.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For A.Y. 2017-18. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:

disallowance u/s 37 of the I.T. Act, 1961 as the assessee claimed freight & inward cartage are in- genuine. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A), Ludhiana erred on facts and law, in deleting addition of Rs. 4,69,65,500/- as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the IT. Act, 1961 and taxed as per provision of section 115BBE

SANT KIRPAL VIDYAK MISSION,LUDHIANA vs. ITO (EXEMPTION), CHANDIGARH

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

demonetization. Gift received, sale of land\nand other capital asset, cash has been deposited out of old income, school income and other\nincome. We are running schools and we have school income and other income.\nCopy of bank statements had been filed by reply dated 29.11.2019.\nSosource of cash deposited in banks is duly explained.\nCashbook asked for has already

BABITA JAIN,AMBALA CITY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER ,WARD -1 AMBALA, AMBALA CANTT

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

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

demonetization period i.e. 4. 09.11.2016 to 30.12.2016 amounting to Rs. 48,70,000/- in CC account which was normal course of business and during previous year i.e. 08.11.2015 to 30.12.2015 assessee had deposited Rs.40,82,000/-. Further submitted that cash was deposited out of cash balance held as per books of accounts and same was out of cash sales until

NIKHIL BECTOR,SARABHA NAGAR LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CIRLCE-1, LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Appeal Is Finally Heard & Disposed Off.

disallowance made is against the law and facts of the cases. 4. That the learned Assessing Officer has erred in charging interest u/s 234B, 234C and 234D of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 5. That the appellant craves to amend, alter, delete or supplement any ground of appeal before the appeal is finally heard and disposed off. 3. Briefly

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 of Rs. 18,56,50,000/- in its bank account

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

demonetization period and during monetization period. The Assessee also filed the audited books of account before the Assessing Officer. No discrepancy has been found or brought on record by the AO. Though once the stock is available with the Assessee and the Assessee’s claim that it has sold it for cash and deposited the same in the bank account

PREM SINGH,CHAMBA vs. ACIT CIRCLE PALAMPUR, PALAMPUR

In the result, the appeal for AY 2017-18 stands partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 946/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 947/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shri Prem Singh Dcit Circle, Palampur बनाम/ The Palace. Chamba Himachal Pradesh - 176061 Vs. Himachal Pradesh – 176310 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aampr-8876-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ajay Jain (Ca) – Ld. Ar Revenue By : Shri Bharat Bhushan Garg (Cit) (Virtual) - Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13-11-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13-01-2026 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. The Assessee Is In Further Appeals Before Us For Assessment Years (Ay) 2015-16 & 2017-18 Which Arises Out Of Separate Orders Of Learned First Appellate Authority. First, We Take Up Appeal For Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16 Which Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac [Cit(A)] Dated 22-07-2025 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S 143(3) Of The Act On 29-12-2017. The Assessee Is Aggrieved By Computation Of Capital

disallowance of payment made to the two payees as commission was also confirmed by endorsing the findings of Ld. AO. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us. 20.3 The issue of payment to M/s Sahijpal & Associates has already been adjudicated by us in AY 2015-16 in assessee’s favor. The payment has been made towards legal compliance

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

demonetization and the books of accounts stand accepted and in such circumstances, source of 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

JASVIR SINGH CHANDI,PATIALA PUNJAB vs. ACIT CIRCLE PATIALA, PUNJAB, PATIALA PUNJAB

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

disallowing the business expenses totaling Rs. 95,706/- out of business expenses admittedly incurred during the year. The addition of equal amount made to the returned income deserves to be deleted.” 3. Briefly the facts of the case are that survey operations under section 133A were carried out at the business premises of the assessee on 23/08/2016 and during

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.

demonetization period to further hold that the subsequent ITA-453/CHD/2022 A.Y. 2017-18 Page 14 of 38 period was not enquired into by the AO. For ready reference, reply filed in the present proceedings is extracted hereunder : 1.15. As against another contravention of Ld. Pr. CIT regarding no inquiries or verification being conducted in respect of the Assessee

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)

demonetization period instead of cash withdrawals. However, in the order framed under section 250 of the Act, Ld. CIT(A) mistakenly mentioned 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

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)

demonetized notes and investments. As it is evident from the assessment record that during assessment proceedings assessee has failed to substantiate its claim and also even at appellate stage, assessee has made onlywritten submission without any new evidences i.e. in the instant written submission the assessee once again failed to produce any ovidences of sources of cash deposit and investments

MOHAN LAL BHAPTA,SHIMLA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER- WARD RAMPUR, RAMPUR

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member)

demonetization was announced. 9.1 However, the claim that the entire sum of Rs.11,10,000/- remained idle in cash is not fully borne out by the evidence. The bank statements reveal small and intermittent cash withdrawals during October and early November 2016, suggesting that the funds were being utilized gradually. The assessee has not produced any contemporaneous record, such