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 Similarly in the Appellant's case the cash was withdrawn for making payments to farmers whose produce was sold to the State Government.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

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

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

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

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

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)

69A in relation to additional income of Rs. 1,50,200/- towards cash offered for taxation during survey from total business income and taxing the same under section 115BBE of the Act. 5. The Learned C1T(A) has erred in confirming the action of the Ld. AO "illegally disallowing

MUKESH KUMAR HUF,AMBALA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD-3, YAMUNA NAGAR, YAMUNA NAGAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Disposal Of The Appeal.

section 69A were confirmed. 5. Against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee preferred in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. Before us, the Ld. AR submitted that the authorities below erred in mechanically estimating agricultural expenses without considering the nature of crops grown, namely poplar and safeda, which are long-term crops requiring minimal expenditure in the year

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)

disallowance to 25 per cent of the total deposit and sustain an addition of Rs.2,81,000/- under section 69A

JAMNA DASS NIKKAMAL JAIN SARAF PRIVATE LIMITED, LUDHIANA,LUDHIANA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal filed by Revenue is dismissed and the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

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

section 69A, hence, penalty proceedings u/s 271AAC are to be initiated, which are being initiated separately. (Addition: Rs. 36,75,23,049-/) 22. Feeling aggrieved with the finding of the Assessing Officer the Assessee preferred the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) and the Ld. CIT(A) has granted 22 the relief to the assessee. The finding

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA vs. M/S JAMNA DASS NIKKAMAL JAIN SARAF PVT. LTD., LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal filed by Revenue is dismissed and the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

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

section 69A, hence, penalty proceedings u/s 271AAC are to be initiated, which are being initiated separately. (Addition: Rs. 36,75,23,049-/) 22. Feeling aggrieved with the finding of the Assessing Officer the Assessee preferred the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) and the Ld. CIT(A) has granted 22 the relief to the assessee. The finding

AKBAR ALI, MANDI GOBINDGARH,MANDI GOBINDGARH vs. JAO THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2 MANDI GOBINDGARH, MANDI GOBINDGARH

In the result, Assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 868/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2019-20 Akbar Ali, The Jao, बनाम H. No. 140, Ram Nagar, The Ito, Sector 9, Ward 2, Vs. Block B Mandi Gobindgarh, Mandi Gobindgarh Punjab 147301 "थायी लेखा सं./ Pan No: Awupk6417B अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

69A, read with section 148, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Unexplained moneys (Reopening of assessment) - Assessment years 2014-15 to 2016-17 - Assessee was engaged in business of trading in gold and silver bullion - Assessing Officer issued reopening notice on ground that assessee had made cash deposits and made cash sales without keeping proper documentary evidence and identity

KIRAN BEDI ,CHANDIGARH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(4), CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

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

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

69A of Income Tax Act. 3. That the CIT(A) has wrongly upheld the addition of Rs. 1521908 on account of cessation of liability under section 41(1) of Income Tax Act. 4. That the CIT(A) has wrongly upheld the disallowance

INCOME TAX OFFICE, WARD-I MANDI GOBINDGARH HQ SIRHIND vs. GOPAL KRISHAN BANSAL, AGGARWAL STEEL TUBES

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed and cross appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

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

section 69A made by the AO and directed to restrict the addition to the extent of 12.5% of non genuine / suspicious/bogus purchases instead of disallowing