DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH vs. UNIPRO TECHNO INFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the order of the ld CIT(A) is confirmed and the grounds of appeal taken by the Revenue are dismissed

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

disallowed as it seems that you are furnishing inaccurate particulars. Please also furnish whether you have claimed such exemption u/s 80- lA in the previous year also or not? 12. Further at para 12 of Form No.10CCB, you have shown sales tax registration No. in which it has ascertained that you were got registered with sales tax on 09.07.2009. Please

SH. VIBHAV JAIN,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-III, LUDHIANA

In the result, the ground no

Bench: SHRI. SANJAY GARG (Judicial Member), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

801(SC) even the circumstantial evidence based on pre-ponderance of probability constitute incriminating material enough to make an assessment of income. 5.2 It was further stated by the AO in his remand report that the statement of Shri Suresh Khemka through which the assessee purchased the shares was recorded on oath on 13/03/2015 by the Investigation wing, Kolkata

SH. BIPAN JAIN,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-III, LUDHIANA

In the result, the ground no

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

801(SC) even the circumstantial evidence based on pre-ponderance of probability constitute incriminating material enough to make an assessment of income. 6.2 It was further stated by the AO in his remand report that the statement of Shri Suresh Khemka through which the assessee purchased the shares was recorded on oath on 13/03/2015 by the Investigation wing, Kolkata

SH. ASHISH JAIN,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-III, LUDHIANA

In the result, the ground no

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

801(SC) even the circumstantial evidence based on pre-ponderance of probability constitute incriminating material enough to make an assessment of income. 6.2 It was further stated by the AO in his remand report that the statement of Shri Suresh Khemka through which the assessee purchased the shares was recorded on oath on 13/03/2015 by the Investigation wing, Kolkata

SH. AKHIL JAIN,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-III, LUDHIANA

In the result, the ground no

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

801(SC) even the circumstantial evidence based on pre-ponderance of probability constitute incriminating material enough to make an assessment of income. 6.2 It was further stated by the AO in his remand report that the statement of Shri Suresh Khemka through which the assessee purchased the shares was recorded on oath on 13/03/2015 by the Investigation wing, Kolkata

SH. ASHISH JAIN,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-III, LUDHIANA

In the result, the ground no

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

801(SC) even the circumstantial evidence based on pre-ponderance of probability constitute incriminating material enough to make an assessment of income. 6.2 It was further stated by the AO in his remand report that the statement of Shri Suresh Khemka through which the assessee purchased the shares was recorded on oath on 13/03/2015 by the Investigation wing, Kolkata

TARA HEALTH FOODS LTD.,MALERKOTLA vs. DCIT, LUDHIANA

In the result, ITA No.1036/CHD/2013 is partly allowed, whereas ITA No

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1036/Chd/2013 & Ita 754/Chd/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S Tara Health Foods Ltd., Vs The Dcit, Village Jitwal Kalan, Central Circle-1, Tehsil – Malerkotla. Ludhiana. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aacct3940R अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ashwani Kumar, Ca & Ms.Deepali Aggarwal,Ca Revenue By : Smt. Kusum Bansal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 09.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.06.2025 Hybrid Hearing O R D E R

Section 153A of the Act. 3. First, we take the quantum appeal i.e. ITA No.1036/CHD/2013. The assessee has taken seven grounds of appeal, however, its grievance revolves around three fold of issues. In the first ground of appeal, assessee has pleaded that ld. CIT (Appeals) has erred in confirming the determination of income at Rs.31,77,60,505/- as against

TARA HEALTH FOODS LIMITED,MALERKOTLA vs. DCIT, LUDHIANA

In the result, ITA No.1036/CHD/2013 is partly allowed, whereas ITA No

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1036/Chd/2013 & Ita 754/Chd/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S Tara Health Foods Ltd., Vs The Dcit, Village Jitwal Kalan, Central Circle-1, Tehsil – Malerkotla. Ludhiana. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aacct3940R अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ashwani Kumar, Ca & Ms.Deepali Aggarwal,Ca Revenue By : Smt. Kusum Bansal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 09.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.06.2025 Hybrid Hearing O R D E R

Section 153A of the Act. 3. First, we take the quantum appeal i.e. ITA No.1036/CHD/2013. The assessee has taken seven grounds of appeal, however, its grievance revolves around three fold of issues. In the first ground of appeal, assessee has pleaded that ld. CIT (Appeals) has erred in confirming the determination of income at Rs.31,77,60,505/- as against

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, LUDHIANA vs. M/S RITISH AGRO PRIVATE LIMITED, LUDHIANA

Appeal stand dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am Physical Hearing 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No. 633/Chandi/2022 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2019-20) M/S Ritish Agro Private Ltd. Dcit-Central Circle-1 बनाम/ Vs. Malerkotla Road, Rasulra Ludhiana Khanna – 141 401 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaccr-7743-J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.638/Chandi/2022 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2019-20) Dcit-Central Circle-1 M/S Ritish Agro Private Ltd. बनाम/ Vs. Ludhiana Malerkotla Road, Rasulra Khanna – 141 401 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaccr-7743-J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Ashwani Kumar (Ca) & Ms. Muskan Garg (Ca) – Ld. Ars ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Ms. Tarundeep Kaur (Cit) – Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24-06-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 04-08-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1.1 Aforesaid Cross-Appeals Arises Out Of The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Ludhiana Dated 26-07-2022

801 1995 and N.K. Industries Ltd Vs. CIT vide SLP (C) No. 769 of 2017 which is squarely applicable in this case? 5. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition of Rs.1,95,88,973/- on account of applying G.P. rate @ 7.5% instead of 5.32% as claimed

M/S RITISH AGRO PRIVATE LIMITED,KHANNA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, LUDHIANA

Appeal stand dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am Physical Hearing 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No. 633/Chandi/2022 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2019-20) M/S Ritish Agro Private Ltd. Dcit-Central Circle-1 बनाम/ Vs. Malerkotla Road, Rasulra Ludhiana Khanna – 141 401 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaccr-7743-J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.638/Chandi/2022 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2019-20) Dcit-Central Circle-1 M/S Ritish Agro Private Ltd. बनाम/ Vs. Ludhiana Malerkotla Road, Rasulra Khanna – 141 401 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaccr-7743-J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Ashwani Kumar (Ca) & Ms. Muskan Garg (Ca) – Ld. Ars ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Ms. Tarundeep Kaur (Cit) – Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24-06-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 04-08-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1.1 Aforesaid Cross-Appeals Arises Out Of The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Ludhiana Dated 26-07-2022

801 1995 and N.K. Industries Ltd Vs. CIT vide SLP (C) No. 769 of 2017 which is squarely applicable in this case? 5. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition of Rs.1,95,88,973/- on account of applying G.P. rate @ 7.5% instead of 5.32% as claimed

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)

801 (SC) the Supreme Court observed “It is no doubt true that in all cases in which a receipt is sought to be taxed as income, the burden lies on the Department to prove that it is within the taxing provision and if a receipt is in the nature of income, the burden of proving that it is not taxable

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)

801 (SC) the Supreme Court observed “It is no doubt true that in all cases in which a receipt is sought to be taxed as income, the burden lies on the Department to prove that it is within the taxing provision and if a receipt is in the nature of income, the burden of proving that it is not taxable

SHRI KRISHAN KUMAR JALAN,BANGALORE vs. ITO, W-1, SIRSA

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

801 (SC) & Durga Prasad More 82\nITR 540 (SC) applied)\".\n6.39 In the case of Pooja Ajmani Vs. ITO (ITAT Delhi) April 25, 2019 ITA No.\n5714/Del/2018, it was held as follows :-\n\"10(38) Bogus Capital Gains From Penny Stocks : u/s.101 of Evidence Act,\n1972, the onus is on the assessee to prove that the LTCG is genuine

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