SH. PARSHOTAM GOYAL,SIRSA vs. PR.CIT, ROHTAK

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.149/Chd/2021 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year :2016-17 Sh. Rajeev Goyal Pr. Commissioner Of Income बनाम M/S R.K. Associates, Tax, Rohtak B.G. Complex Near Ganesh Dharam Kanta, Sirsa -125055, Haryana "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Aibpg7289A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

unexplained cash credits u/s 68 of the Act. It was also submitted that the bank account does not constitute “books of account” of the assessee, as has been held in following cases: i) 113 TTJ 178 (Del) Mayawati vs. DCIT Affirmed by Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT vs. Mayawati reported

SHRI RAJEEV GOYAL,SIRSA vs. PR.CIT, ROHTAK

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.149/Chd/2021 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year :2016-17 Sh. Rajeev Goyal Pr. Commissioner Of Income बनाम M/S R.K. Associates, Tax, Rohtak B.G. Complex Near Ganesh Dharam Kanta, Sirsa -125055, Haryana "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Aibpg7289A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

unexplained cash credits u/s 68 of the Act. It was also submitted that the bank account does not constitute “books of account” of the assessee, as has been held in following cases: i) 113 TTJ 178 (Del) Mayawati vs. DCIT Affirmed by Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT vs. Mayawati reported

PRIYA GOYAL,SIRSA vs. PR.CIT, ROHTAK

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.149/Chd/2021 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year :2016-17 Sh. Rajeev Goyal Pr. Commissioner Of Income बनाम M/S R.K. Associates, Tax, Rohtak B.G. Complex Near Ganesh Dharam Kanta, Sirsa -125055, Haryana "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Aibpg7289A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

unexplained cash credits u/s 68 of the Act. It was also submitted that the bank account does not constitute “books of account” of the assessee, as has been held in following cases: i) 113 TTJ 178 (Del) Mayawati vs. DCIT Affirmed by Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT vs. Mayawati reported

M/S PARDEEP ISPAT(P) LTD.,SIRSA vs. PR.CIT, ROHTAK

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.149/Chd/2021 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year :2016-17 Sh. Rajeev Goyal Pr. Commissioner Of Income बनाम M/S R.K. Associates, Tax, Rohtak B.G. Complex Near Ganesh Dharam Kanta, Sirsa -125055, Haryana "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Aibpg7289A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

unexplained cash credits u/s 68 of the Act. It was also submitted that the bank account does not constitute “books of account” of the assessee, as has been held in following cases: i) 113 TTJ 178 (Del) Mayawati vs. DCIT Affirmed by Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT vs. Mayawati reported

SHRI. TARSEM GOYAL,SIRSA vs. PR.CIT, ROHTAK

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.149/Chd/2021 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year :2016-17 Sh. Rajeev Goyal Pr. Commissioner Of Income बनाम M/S R.K. Associates, Tax, Rohtak B.G. Complex Near Ganesh Dharam Kanta, Sirsa -125055, Haryana "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Aibpg7289A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

unexplained cash credits u/s 68 of the Act. It was also submitted that the bank account does not constitute “books of account” of the assessee, as has been held in following cases: i) 113 TTJ 178 (Del) Mayawati vs. DCIT Affirmed by Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT vs. Mayawati reported

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)

unexplained cash credit u/s 68 r.w.s. 115BBE. The Reserve bank of India vide its gazette Notification No. 2652 dated 08.11.2016 has held that the specified bank notes held by a person other than a banking company referred to in subparagraph 1) of Paragraph 1 or Government Treasury may be exchanged at any issue office of the Reserve Bank

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

unexplained cash credit u/s 68; (ii) Disallowance u/s 14A; (iii) Addition of unexplained credit u/s 69A. Having heard rival submissions

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

SAHIL SINGLA,CHANDIGARH vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC-2, CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

cash credit”. 30. M/s TJR Properties Pvt. Ltd. 30.1 The appellant had received unsecured loans from M/s TJR Properties Private Limited during the year through banking channels. We find that as rightly submitted on behalf of the assessee, here again, the addition has illegally been confirmed in the face of voluminous documentary evidence brought on record by the assessee

ITO, LUDHIANA vs. ARUN GUPTA, LUDHIANA

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Krinwant Sahay, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.112/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22) Ito Arun Gupta बनाम/ Vs. Aayakar Bhawan, Rishi Nagar 1698 – New Shakti Nagar, Ludhiana, Punjab - 141001 Ludhiana, Punjab - 141001 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Abkpg-4933-F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. B.M. Monga & Sh. Rohit Kaura (Advocates) ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Manav Bansal (Cit) Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21-01-2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 19-03-2026 : आदेश / O R D E R Krinwant Sahay () This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi, Dated 04.12.2024, Pertaining To The Assessment Year 2021-22. The Revenue Has Challenged The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) In Setting Aside The Assessment Order To The File Of The Assessing Officer For Fresh Adjudication.

unexplained cash credits u/s 68 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on account of unverified Unsecured Loans and the assessee had failed to furnish any explanation on this issue during the course of assessment proceedings. 8. That, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has failed to appreciate the fact that the disallowance

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)

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. Thus the assessee was able to explain the source of the amount

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PANCHKULA CIRCLE, PANCHKULA, PANCHKULA vs. KONARK RAJHANS ESTATE PRIVATE LIMITED, PANCHKULA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No. 805/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12 Acit M/S Konark Rajhans Estate Private Limited Panchkula Circle बनाम/ Vs. Nh 73, Village Kot Extension-Ii, Sector 14, Panchkula. Panchkula. "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaeck-2405-Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Manav Bansal (Cit) – Ld. Dr ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal (Ca)-Ld. Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20-08-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13/11/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1.1 Aforesaid Appeal By The Revenue For Assessment Year (Ay) 2011- 12 Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 27-05-2024 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Act On 29-12-2018. The Revenue Is Aggrieved By Deletion Of Twin Quantum Additions Of Rs.40.85 Lacs & Rs.707.75 Lacs As Made By Ld. Ao In The Assessment Order. The Grounds Of Appeal Read As Under: -

unexplained cash credit u/s 68 and the assessment was framed. Appellate Proceedings 3.1 The assessee, in its submissions, assailed the reopening of the assessment on legal grounds. It was contended that the recording of reasons was solely derived on suspicion formed merely on the basis of information as available with the department without there being any fresh tangible material

RADIANT CEMENT COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED,KALA AMB, NAHAN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, INCOME TAX OFFICE, NAHAN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Dr Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 187/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Radiant Cement Company Private Vs. The Ito, बनाम Limited, Kala Amb, Sirmour Nahan, Sirmour. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aaacr8765J अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent

Credit Rs. 1,11,77,284/-. Apparently, M/s Shree 9 187-Chd-2024 & SA-13-Chd-2024 – Radiant Cement Company Pvt. Ltd., Sirmour, H.P. Ram Udyog did not record cash payment against sales of 1,11,39,745/- in their books and falsely shown it as payable in the name of company till date. 8. Finally, the ld. Counsel

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)

cash by the appellant without any justification. 8. That the learned CIT(A) has wrongly upheld addition of Rs. 14,20,000/- u/s 68 of the Act on surmises and conjectures. 9. That the learned CIT(A) has wrongly upheld disallowance of loss of Rs.50,231/- without discussing the same in the impugned order. 10. That the learned

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)

cash by the appellant without any justification. 8. That the learned CIT(A) has wrongly upheld addition of Rs. 14,20,000/- u/s 68 of the Act on surmises and conjectures. 9. That the learned CIT(A) has wrongly upheld disallowance of loss of Rs.50,231/- without discussing the same in the impugned order. 10. That the learned

SH. NARESH CHAUHAN,SHIMLA vs. DCIT, CC-II, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the addition so made is hereby directed to be deleted and the ground of appeal is allowed

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

credit in the books of the assessee. It was submitted that the payment has been made in the subsequent financial year and that too, from known sources and mere fact that cash payment has been made cannot be a basis for disallowance even in the subsequent assessment year given the business expediency requiring the assessee to make such cash payment

SH. NARESH CHAUHAN,SHIMLA vs. ACIT, CC-II, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the addition so made is hereby directed to be deleted and the ground of appeal is allowed

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

credit in the books of the assessee. It was submitted that the payment has been made in the subsequent financial year and that too, from known sources and mere fact that cash payment has been made cannot be a basis for disallowance even in the subsequent assessment year given the business expediency requiring the assessee to make such cash payment

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

credits, without appreciating that the same represented genuine sale proceeds. 4. That on facts, circumstances and legal position of the case, Worthy CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of Ld. AO in imposing tax rate of 60% u/s 115BBE plus surcharge thereon on above addition made u/s 68 in Ground No. 3, even when if the said addition