DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. KULWANT SINGH, MOHALI

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

69A ‘subject to no explanation’. Since the assessees could not satisfactorily explain the sources of income, the Assessing officer, therefore, invoked the Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) of the Act and initiated penalty proceedings. The assessee reiterated that he had no records or evidence relating to the source of income so earned. Therefore, the Assessing officer levied

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. PARAMJIT SINGH, MOHALI

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

69A ‘subject to no explanation’. Since the assessees could not satisfactorily explain the sources of income, the Assessing officer, therefore, invoked the Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) of the Act and initiated penalty proceedings. The assessee reiterated that he had no records or evidence relating to the source of income so earned. Therefore, the Assessing officer levied

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. PARAMJIT SINGH, MOHALI

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

69A ‘subject to no explanation’. Since the assessees could not satisfactorily explain the sources of income, the Assessing officer, therefore, invoked the Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) of the Act and initiated penalty proceedings. The assessee reiterated that he had no records or evidence relating to the source of income so earned. Therefore, the Assessing officer levied

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. JASWANT KAUR, MOHALI

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

69A ‘subject to no explanation’. Since the assessees could not satisfactorily explain the sources of income, the Assessing officer, therefore, invoked the Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) of the Act and initiated penalty proceedings. The assessee reiterated that he had no records or evidence relating to the source of income so earned. Therefore, the Assessing officer levied

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. KULWANT SINGH, MOHALI

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

69A ‘subject to no explanation’. Since the assessees could not satisfactorily explain the sources of income, the Assessing officer, therefore, invoked the Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) of the Act and initiated penalty proceedings. The assessee reiterated that he had no records or evidence relating to the source of income so earned. Therefore, the Assessing officer levied

SH. KRISHAN KUMAR,KHANNA vs. DCIT, CC-1, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

69A to be taxed as per the provisions of section 115BBE of the Act and confirmed the same by dismissing the Grounds of appeal of the Assessee. 6. During the course of hearing before us, ld. AR submitted that the Assessee is an individual, proprietor of a business entity, namely RaiwazJeweller, engaged in the business of gold smith and merchant

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)

69A, 69B, 69C, or 69D of the Act would be an extreme measure against businesses and households alike. 2.2.22 Therefore, while conducting business operations, entities routinely withdraw cash to meet expenses. Similarly in the Appellant's case the cash was withdrawn for making payments to farmers whose produce was sold to the State Government. Therefore, the actions

J.R AGROVET,KHANNA vs. DCIT, CENTR CIR-1, LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

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

disallowing set off consequentially is incorrect and so also provisions of Section 115BBE as material ingredients of Section 69A are all met and explanation

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)

69A inapplicable as per its own language and settled judicial precedents. In view of the above the Ground No. 1 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed. 12. With respect to Ground No. 2, The Ld. AR had submitted that amount was deposited in the bank account after the encashment of the FDR’s and from the bank account

KASTURI LAL,LUDHIANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3, KHANNA, KHANNA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

disallowance was made as per provisions of Section 69A of the Act.” 12. We have heard the rival contentions and purused

SH. GURINDER MAKKAR,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-3, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is disposed off in light of aforesaid directions

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

disallowing the depreciation of such building would result in double taxation. 6.9 It was submitted that as the assessee has duly paid tax on all such amount of surrender made by the assessee, therefore, making additions of the same amount to the total income of the assessee are wholly invalid as it results 'double taxation and therefore, against the principles

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

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

69A of the Act. Moreover, the Assessing Officer has not disputed the business losses of the appellant. The Assessing Officer has not found any disallowable expenditure to show that the appellant has manipulated its books of accounts to bring down its total income. No such evidence has been brought on record to show that the assessee has booked any bogus

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)

section 69A of the Act. Further, deduction claimed under Chapter VIA amounting to Rs. 1,50,000/- was also denied to the assessee in absence of necessary information/ supporting documentation in support of the amount so claimed to be deposited for seeking necessary deduction. 4. Being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before

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

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

69A instead of Section 68 of the Act as done by the Ld Assessing Officer. 3 That the order dated 26.09.2023 passed u/s 250(6) of the Income -tax Act, 1961 by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Gurgaon is against law and facts on the file in as much he was not justified to uphold the action

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

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

69A instead of Section 68 of the Act as done by the Ld Assessing Officer. 3 That the order dated 26.09.2023 passed u/s 250(6) of the Income -tax Act, 1961 by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Gurgaon is against law and facts on the file in as much he was not justified to uphold the action

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

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

disallowed 30% of cash\ndeposited i.e Rs.98,72,100/- (30% of 3,29,07,000/-) as unexplained money u/s\n69A of the IT. Act.\"\n5.4 The appellant is contending that the cash deposited was on account of\nsale of jewellary. Appellant is pleading that the AO has made the addition only\non suspicion hypothetical imagination, presumption and assumptions.\nAppellant contends

SH. MOHIT MITTAL PROP. MITTAL ENTERPRISES,LUDHIANA, PUNJAB vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1 LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA, PUNJAB

In the result, appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahay

disallowances of claims, if any, relating to its business income. 9. In view of this, since the aforesaid surrender is not covered under the provisions of Section 68, 69, 69A

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.

section 69A on account of cash deposited by the assessee out of cash in hand available ignoring the submissions made in respect of the said deposits. 3. That in any case the disallowance