KARNAIL SINGH vs. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CHANDIGARH

In the result, ground no. 9 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue

Bench: Us.

Section 153A were not applicable and the alleged notice issued U/s.l53A was unauthorized, illegal and unlawful and, therefore, the assessment made U/s.l53Ais also unjust, unlawful and bad in law. 6. That in any case, the alleged statement of Karnail Singh recorded on 09.03.2012 could not be treated as search executed on Karnail Singh. 7. That the income was rightly declared

KARNAIL SINGH vs. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CHANDIGARH

In the result, ground no. 9 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue

Bench: Us.

Section 153A were not applicable and the alleged notice issued U/s.l53A was unauthorized, illegal and unlawful and, therefore, the assessment made U/s.l53Ais also unjust, unlawful and bad in law. 6. That in any case, the alleged statement of Karnail Singh recorded on 09.03.2012 could not be treated as search executed on Karnail Singh. 7. That the income was rightly declared

KARNAIL SINGH vs. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CHANDIGARH

In the result, ground no. 9 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue

Bench: Us.

Section 153A were not applicable and the alleged notice issued U/s.l53A was unauthorized, illegal and unlawful and, therefore, the assessment made U/s.l53Ais also unjust, unlawful and bad in law. 6. That in any case, the alleged statement of Karnail Singh recorded on 09.03.2012 could not be treated as search executed on Karnail Singh. 7. That the income was rightly declared

KARNAIL SINGH vs. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CHANDIGARH

In the result, ground no. 9 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue

Bench: Us.

Section 153A were not applicable and the alleged notice issued U/s.l53A was unauthorized, illegal and unlawful and, therefore, the assessment made U/s.l53Ais also unjust, unlawful and bad in law. 6. That in any case, the alleged statement of Karnail Singh recorded on 09.03.2012 could not be treated as search executed on Karnail Singh. 7. That the income was rightly declared

SHRI RAJDEEP SINGH CHIMNI,CHANDIGARH vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the addition so made and sustained by the ld CIT(A) is hereby deleted and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

house property at Vasant Kunj for Rs. 99,75J000/- (15% share) whose circle rate valuation was Rs. 1,23,32,085/- (15% share). The difference in sale consideration based on circle rate and actual rate was Rs. 23,57,085/- (15% share). The assessee was provided with a show cause and he was asked to show cause

SHOBHA SHARMA,SIRSA vs. ITO-WARD-3, SIRSA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

234B of the Act and interest of Rs. 6,050/- u/s 234C of the Act which are not leviable on the facts of the instant case. Prayer: It is therefore, prayed that it be held that assessment made by the learned Assessing Officer and sustained by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) deserves to be quashed as such

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

DCIT, LUDHIANA vs. SH. INDERJIT SINGH BRAR, MOHALI

house property, capital gain & other sources". It is stated that the assessee is maintaining personal books of accounts which has been produced. 2.1 During the course of search of the residence premises of the assessee at Mohali, certain documents in the form of annexure ISB-8, 11 & 21 were found during the course of search. The notings on these documents

DCIT, LUDHIANA vs. SH. INDERJIT SINGH BRAR, MOHALI

house property, capital gain & other sources". It is stated that the assessee is maintaining personal books of accounts which has been produced. 2.1 During the course of search of the residence premises of the assessee at Mohali, certain documents in the form of annexure ISB-8, 11 & 21 were found during the course of search. The notings on these documents

SH. INDERJIT SINGH BRAR,BATHINDA vs. DCIT, LUDHIANA

house property, capital gain & other sources". It is stated that the assessee is maintaining personal books of accounts which has been produced. 2.1 During the course of search of the residence premises of the assessee at Mohali, certain documents in the form of annexure ISB-8, 11 & 21 were found during the course of search. The notings on these documents

M/S ASHA TECHNOLOGIES,KALA AMB vs. ITO, SIRMOUR

In the result, both the above appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed as aforesaid in respect of impugned orders dt

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

section 40A(3) of Income Tax Act 1961 .Therefore, this amount of Rs 1,23,299/- is added back to the income of the assessee being unexplained cash credit since the same are not reflected in assessee's regular books of accounts on those relevant dates.. Since the above transaction also violated the provisions of section

M/S ASHA TECHNOLOGIES,SIRMOUR vs. ADDL. CIT, SOLAN

In the result, both the above appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed as aforesaid in respect of impugned orders dt

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

section 40A(3) of Income Tax Act 1961 .Therefore, this amount of Rs 1,23,299/- is added back to the income of the assessee being unexplained cash credit since the same are not reflected in assessee's regular books of accounts on those relevant dates.. Since the above transaction also violated the provisions of section

SHRI RAJIV GUPTA,SIRSA vs. ITO-WARD-2, SIRSA

Bench: The Bench That The Lead

234B of the Act which are not leviable on the facts of the instant case. Prayer : It is therefore, prayed that, it be held that addition made and sustained by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) be deleted and appeal of the appellant be allowed. 4. Addressing the grounds, the ld. AR submitted that the issue at hand