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 made during the demonetization

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)

house property which was added to the income of the assessee (i.e; Rs. 48,70,000/- + Rs. 52,248/-) and assessed income for tax was worked out at Rs. 53,55,786/- i.e; Rs. 3,81,290/- + 49,22,248/- + 52,248/- = Rs. 53,55,786/-. 10. The Ld. AO order is dt. 06/12/2019 which simply says as core finding

SH. ABHISHEK BANSAL,BARNALA vs. PR. CIT, PATIALA

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Dr Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 131/Chd/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Abhishek Bansal, Vs. Pr. Commissioner बनाम Prop. M/S Lifeline Multi Income Tax, Specialilty Hospitality, 25 Acre Patiala Extn., Near Fountain Chowk, Barnala, Punjab "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Acgpb5740E अपीलाथ" ./ Appellant ""यथ" / Respondent ( Hybrid Mode ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Sh. Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Rohit Sharma, Cit Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 09.05.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 13.06.2024 आदेश/Order Per Dr. Krinwant Sahay, A.M.:

demonetization. 4. That the Ld. PCIT has erred in not following the judgment of Jurisdictional Bench of the ITAT in the case of Surya Hatchery Vs PCIT (2023) 102 ITR (Trib.) 186 Chd and Surinder Kumar & Others reported in (2023) 102 ITR (Trib.) 247 and others, in which, on similar facts and circumstances, the order u/s 263 as passed

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 during the year. 2. Cash deposit during the demonetization

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 that the cash deposits of Rs. 62,89,450/- in the assessee’s Canara Bank account were unexplained income 3 under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act. The AO confirmed that the money belonged to the assessee

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.

demonetization period to further hold that the subsequent ITA-453/CHD/2022 A.Y. 2017-18 Page 14 of 38 period was not enquired into by the AO. For ready reference, reply filed in the present proceedings is extracted hereunder : 1.15. As against another contravention of Ld. Pr. CIT regarding no inquiries or verification being conducted in respect of the Assessee

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

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

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)

demonetization period out of earlier cash withdrawals made from his bank account for the purposes of medical treatment of his sister and has given details of the cash so withdrawn on the various dates totaling to Rs. 15,35,000/-. The submissions so filed by the assessee were not found acceptable to the AO for the reason that the funds