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

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

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. SATNAM SINGH,MOHALI vs. ITO, WARD 6(1), MOHALI

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Krinwant Sahay

house property, capital gains and income from other sources. According to the Assessing Officer the sources of deposits i.e. by way of cash

SH. SATNAM SINGH,MOHALI vs. ITO, WARD 6(4), MOHALI

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Krinwant Sahay

house property, capital gains and income from other sources. According to the Assessing Officer the sources of deposits i.e. by way of cash

PREM SINGH,CHAMBA vs. ACIT CIRCLE PALAMPUR, PALAMPUR

In the result, the appeal for AY 2017-18 stands partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 946/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 947/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shri Prem Singh Dcit Circle, Palampur बनाम/ The Palace. Chamba Himachal Pradesh - 176061 Vs. Himachal Pradesh – 176310 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aampr-8876-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ajay Jain (Ca) – Ld. Ar Revenue By : Shri Bharat Bhushan Garg (Cit) (Virtual) - Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13-11-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13-01-2026 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. The Assessee Is In Further Appeals Before Us For Assessment Years (Ay) 2015-16 & 2017-18 Which Arises Out Of Separate Orders Of Learned First Appellate Authority. First, We Take Up Appeal For Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16 Which Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac [Cit(A)] Dated 22-07-2025 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S 143(3) Of The Act On 29-12-2017. The Assessee Is Aggrieved By Computation Of Capital

house property. In support of its claim, the assessee has furnished valuation report from registered valuer of the department who has carried out physical inspection of the property. The said valuation report has been placed on age Nos. 44 to 47 of the paper-book wherein the valuer has valued the property as under: - Particulars Area in sft Rate

SANJEEV KUMAR GOYAL,FATEHABAD vs. DCIT, CC-2, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is allowed

Bench: This Hon’Ble Tribunal Under Section 253 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 As Amended From Time To Time. 2. The Assessee Is Aggrieved By The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Dt. 20/01/2023 In Appeal No. 10853/2018-19/It/Cit(A)-5/Ldh/2021-22 For The A.Y. 2019-20 Under Section 250(6) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Which Was Dismissed. Therefore The Present Second Appeal Under Section 253 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Before Us Against The Aforesaid Order Dt. 20/01/2023 Which Is Hereinafter Referred To As The Impugned Order.

house property, profits and gains of business or profession, or capital gains, nor as it income from "other sources" because the provisions of section 69, 69A, 69B and 69C treat unexplained investments, unexplained money, bullion etc. and unexplained expenditure as deemed income where the nature and sources of investment, acquisition or expenditure, as the case may be, have not been

SMT. JYOTI BHALLA,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO, WARD-3(2), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

Property Act to be registered, may be received as evidence of a contract in a suit for specific performance under Chapter-ll of the Specific Relief Act, 1877, or as evidence of any collateral transaction not required to be effected by registered instrument, however, subject to Section 17(1A) of the Registration Act. It is not the case on behalf

DCIT, CIRCLE, PATIALA vs. M/S PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LTD., PATIALA

In the result, ground no. 1 & 3 of the Revenue’s appeal is allowed and ground no

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

deposited with the Central Government it was a portion of profit of the business of the assessee. Reliance was also placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of R.B.Jodhamal Kuthiala Vs. CIT [(1972) 83 ITR 464 (P&H)] in which the issue was about the interest on refund of excess profit

RAJIV KUMAR GOYAL,DHURI vs. DCIT, CC-2, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: This Hon’Ble Tribunal Under Section 253 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 As Amended From Time To Time. 2. The Assessee Is Aggrieved By Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Dated 03/02/2023 In Appeal No. 10850/2018-19/It/Cit(A)-5/Ldh/2021-22 For A.Y. 2019-20 Under Section 250(6) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Which Was Dismissed. Therefore The Present Second Appeal Under Section 253 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Before Us Against The Aforesaid Order Dt. 03/02/2023 Which Is Hereiafter Referred To As The Impugned Order. Factual Matrix 3. The Assessee Had For The Relevant Year I.E; A.Y. 2019-20 Was Also Engaged In The Same Business I.E; Manufacturing Of Pvc Pipes & Had Filed

house property, profits and gains of business or profession, or capital gains, nor as it income from "other sources" because the provisions of section 69, 69A, 69B and 69C treat unexplained investments, unexplained money, bullion etc. and unexplained expenditure as deemed income where the nature and sources of investment, acquisition or expenditure, as the case may be, have not been

YASH PAL JINDAL, 1233, SECTOR 10, AMBALA CITY, HARYANA,HARYANA vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, NFAC DELHI, JAO, INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, AMBALA, HARYANA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurposes

house property, other sources and a\nsmall business. The assessment was reopened under section 147 and\nconcluded under section 144 r.w.s.144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the\nAct\"). The AO made an addition of Rs.15,00,000 under section 69A of the Act\non account of unexplained cash deposits

MANMOHAN SINGH BAJWA,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO, , WARD 6(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

deposit by the assessee. He treated this amount as unexplained cash. He, thereafter, made an addition of Rs.1,52,98,046/- under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act. 6. Being dissatisfied with the assessment order, assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A), however, ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution. 7. With