AJMER SINGH,MOHALI vs. ITO, W-6(5), MOHAL

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Disposal Of Appeal.”

property was sold for Rs. 2,30,00,000/- is not accepted and it is treated to have been sold for 62,70,000/- only, then in that situation, assessee is required to show the source of cash deposit in his account. It is in this background that assessee has prepared the cash flow statement andfiled it before your honorfor

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)

deposit in current year from last year i.e; Rs. 1,67,81,000/- in F.Y. 2015-16 and Rs. 60,30,000/- in F.Y. 2016-17 which shows that the huge cash unaccounted was lying with the assessee which has been given shape of sales. 9. There was a loss of Rs. 52,248/- on account of house property

LEELA DUTT SHARMA,CHANDIGARH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 5(3), CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

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

House Property" and "Income from Other Sources" but provided no details regarding the cash deposits in question. 3.1 The Ld. AO decided

SSMT. CHARU AGGARWAL,PATIALA vs. DCIT-CC, PATIALA

In the result, appeals of both the assesses are allowed

house which were not in the possession or control of assessee. Thus, addition could not have been made in the hands of the assessee for such alleged difference in sales entered in books. 17. Further, AO failed to bring on record any cogent material to establish that assessee has done any cash sales after demonetization to generate cash in hands

KALANEEDHI JEWELLERS LLP,PATIALA vs. DCIT-CC, PATIALA

In the result, appeals of both the assesses are allowed

house which were not in the possession or control of assessee. Thus, addition could not have been made in the hands of the assessee for such alleged difference in sales entered in books. 17. Further, AO failed to bring on record any cogent material to establish that assessee has done any cash sales after demonetization to generate cash in hands

SH. GULSHAN KUMAR PROP. G.K. RESORTS,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT CIRCLE-2, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt.Diva Singh & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavsh. Gulshan Kumar बनाम Deputy Commissioner Of Prop. G. K. Resorts House No. 3, Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Agar Nagar Extension, Ferospur Ludhiana Road, Ludhiana 1410212, Punjab "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aaqpk1200Q

house property”, “income from business/profession” and “income from other sources”. The case of the assessee was selected under CASS on account of large cash deposits

SSHRI KULDIP SINGH,CHANDIGARH vs. PR.CIT-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Paresh M. Joshiआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 103/Chd/2021 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Shri Kuldeep Singh, Vs. The Pr. Cit-1, 2010, बनाम Chandigarh Sec 21-C, Chandigarh "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Bllps7083L अपीलाथ"/ Assessee ""यथ"/ Repsondent ( Physical Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Ajay Jain, Ca राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Rohit Sharma, Cit Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 03.12.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30.01.2025 आदेश/Order Per Paresh M. Joshi, Jm : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee U/S 253 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Herein Referred To As ‘The Act’] Before This Tribunal. The Assessee Is Aggrieved By The Order Bearing No. Itba/Rev/F/ Revs/ 250 /2020-21/1031467646 (1) Dated 14.03.2021 Of Ld. Pcit, Chandigarh-1 Passed U/S 263 Of The Act. The Relevant A.Y.

cash deposits of Rs. 32,88,320/- in his saving Bank account maintained with ICICI Bank Ltd., Chandigarh. Apart from this you have also purchased 103-chd-2021 Shri Kuldeep Sihngh, Chandigarh 6 residential house at Gaziabad consideration a amount of Rs. 80,35,000/- ( Rs. 75,00,000/- + Stamp Charges of Rs. 5,25,000/- + Rs. 10,000/-Registration

BHUPINDER SINGH SON OF SH. GURMUKH SINGH ,PUNJAB vs. THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CHANDIGARH-1, C.R BUILDING HIMALAYA MARG, SECTOR 17-E, CHANDIGARH, PUNJAB

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

property sold in FY 2010-11 as filed with the AO is forming part of paper book at Pg 32-39 4. Para 7.2, Page 4 The assessee had made lump sum credit ❖ It is standard practice in agricultural sector that entries of Rs. 5,28,500 and Rs. 5,21,500 on payment is received from Arhatias on sale

SH. PARDEEP KUMAR,PANCHKULA vs. ITO, WARD 3, PANCHKULA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the addition is restricted to Rs

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

house and therefore the file of the assessee got misplaced during shifting. He undertakes that as soon as the file is traced he will return the same. The assessee appeared before the AO on 30/12/2016 but no source was furnished. Being the time barring matter no further date were provided to the assessee by the AO and he has passed

SHRI DILRAJ SINGH DHALIWAL,CHANDIGARH vs. PR.CIT-1, CHANDIGARH

house no. 7, Sector 3A, Chandigarh vide submission dt. 05/9/2017 and 14/09/2017 and which has been duly examined by the AO and no adverse findings has been recorded by him. 3.4 It was accordingly submitted that the necessary enquiry and verification have been carried out by the AO and thereafter the source of cash deposits has been duly accepted

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.

cash deposit and as per letter dated 05.12.2019”. 3.18 It was submitted that thereafter, the assessment order has been passed on 27.12.2019. Accordingly, it was argued that the AO has required the assessee to explain and the explanation made available by the assessee has been faulted with on the grounds that the AO has accepted the same without enquiries. Pointing

ITO, W-4, CHANDIGARH vs. SANT RAM SHARMA, PANCHKULA

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Ms.Diva Singh & Ms.Annapurna Guptathe Income Tax Officer, Vs. Sh.Sant Ram Sharma, Ward 4, H.No.883, Sector 8, Panchkula. Panchkula. Pan: Ampps1995K (Appellant) (Respondent)

house property assessable as such. 17. Briefly stated, during assessment proceedings, the assessee had attributed cash deposited in the bank

VIPAN KUMAR THAMMAN,DERABASSI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(5),CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

The appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SHRI RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

House No 65 Sector 18 A Chandigarh. However, the AO noticed that the perusal of Bank accountreveals that no cash withdrawal was made from her bank account on this date. Accordingly, the AO is justified in making the addition of Rs. 30,00,000/-as income from undisclosed sources. From the facts indicated above, it is observed that the addition

SURINDER SINGH BASSI,MOHALI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, CHANDIGARH

In the result, assessee’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 966/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Surinder Singh Bassi, The Ito, बनाम Village Mamupur, Ward 6(4), Tehsil Kharar, Chandigarh Vs. Mohali 140301 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aerpb1274J अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent ( Hybrid Mode ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Sh. Piyush Pruthi, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. Cit Sr. Dr (Virtual)

House Property, Income from Business, Income from Other Sources and Claimed an exemption of Rs. 4,50,000/- towards agricultural income. The case was selected for limited scrutiny assessment through CASS on the following grounds: 1. Cash deposit

HARVINDER SINGH ,CHANDIGARH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(1), CHANDIGARH , CHANDIGARH

In the result, the addition so made and sustained by the ld CIT(A) is hereby directed to be deleted

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

house for Rs. 9,00,000/- and expended another Rs. 8,00,000/- on illness of her sister who has since expired on 03/11/2016 and out of the remaining cash withdrawn, Rs. 14,00,000/- was deposited on 15/11/2016 which still leave an amount of Rs. 5,44,500/- as cash in hand. It was further submitted that during

SH. ANOOP SAGGAR,LUDHIANA vs. ITO, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 507/Chd/2015 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12

property, who had received Rs. 70 lac each. That the other co-owners had also deposited in bank the same amount in financial year 2010-11 and their assessments have been completed under various section i.e. 147/143(3) & 153A/143(3) of the Act, wherein, on similar facts and circumstances after making detailed enquiries on the similar facts, the different Assessing

SH.ASHOK KUMAR GUPTA,LUDHIANA vs. PR.CIT-1, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

deposited a sum of Rs. 35,318/- and the necessary documentation were submitted before the AO as well as before the Ld. PCIT and thereafter the approval was granted on 16/06/2014. It was submitted that the assessee has been paying property tax on its residential house at Aggar Nagar, Ludhiana from F.Y. 2013-14 onwards. It was submitted that total

SH. KULDEEP SINGH,LUDHIANA vs. ITO, W-VI(4), LUDHIANA

Bench: The Ao As Well As During The Quantum Proceedings Before The Cit(A) . Both The Authorities Ignore The Fact That The Assesse Was Under Medical Supervision & Was Going Kidney Treatment & Was Under Regular Dialysis , Therefore Had To Visit Hospital For His

cash deposit in bank and the investment in property,amounting in all to Rs.40,61,000/- ,was from the sale of a property for Rs. 50 lacs. It was contended that the assessee had entered into an agreement to sell his property to two persons jointly,Sh.Avinash Jain & Sh.Prabhjeet Singh,for Rs.50 lacs, vide agreement dated16-12-08, receiving full