M/S FAMINA KNIT FABS,LUDHIANA vs. ACIT, C-3, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

section 69, 69-B and 69 -C of the Act is to be treated separately and it is not income from salary, house property, profit and gains from business or capital gain, nor it is income from other sources. No setoff is allowable against this income? 3. That the order of the Ld. CIT (A) be set aside and that

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

sections 69, 69A, 69B and 69C being treated separately, because such deemed income is not income from salary, house property

SH. KRISHAN KUMAR,KHANNA vs. DCIT, CC-1, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

69C and advances made to Sundry Parties is covered u/s 69, 69B or 69D is like an open ended hypothesis which is not supported by any specific finding that the matter shall fall under which of the specific sections and how the conditions stated therein are satisfied before the said provisions are invoked. It is like laying a general rule

RAV SHARAN SINGH,PATIALA vs. ACIT, C.C., PATIALA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

69C and advances made to Sundry Parties is covered u/s 69, 69B or 69D is like an open ended hypothesis which is not supported by any specific finding that the matter shall fall under which of the specific sections and how the conditions stated therein are satisfied before the said provisions are invoked. It is like laying a general rule

M/S JASHAN FINLEASE LTD.,KHANNA vs. DCIT, CC-1, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

69C and advances made to Sundry Parties is covered u/s 69, 69B or 69D is like an open ended hypothesis which is not supported by any specific finding that the matter shall fall under which of the specific sections and how the conditions stated therein are satisfied before the said provisions are invoked. It is like laying a general rule

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)

69C of the Act. In the result, the addition so made is hereby directed to be deleted and the ground of appeal is allowed. 42. In Ground No. 3, the assessee has challenged the sustenance of addition of Rs. 1.00 Crores under Section 68 of the Act. 43. In this regard, briefly the facts of the case are that during

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)

69C of the Act. In the result, the addition so made is hereby directed to be deleted and the ground of appeal is allowed. 42. In Ground No. 3, the assessee has challenged the sustenance of addition of Rs. 1.00 Crores under Section 68 of the Act. 43. In this regard, briefly the facts of the case are that during

M/S AJAY KUMAR SOOD ENGINEERS & CONTRACTORS,SHIMLA vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

The appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

house run by the assessee showing receipts of Rs. 1,61,500/- for the period of 06/06/2009 to 02/08/2009. The Assessing Officer has extrapolated this amount for the entire year to Rs. 6,40,000/- based on the decision of ITAT Hyderabad which held that where a regular pattern of suppression is established the lawful presumption is that there

M/S AJAY KUMAR SOOD ENGINEERS & CONTRACTORS,SHIMLA vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

The appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

house run by the assessee showing receipts of Rs. 1,61,500/- for the period of 06/06/2009 to 02/08/2009. The Assessing Officer has extrapolated this amount for the entire year to Rs. 6,40,000/- based on the decision of ITAT Hyderabad which held that where a regular pattern of suppression is established the lawful presumption is that there

M/S AJAY KUMAR SOOD ENGINEERS & CONTRACTORS,SHIMLA vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

The appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

house run by the assessee showing receipts of Rs. 1,61,500/- for the period of 06/06/2009 to 02/08/2009. The Assessing Officer has extrapolated this amount for the entire year to Rs. 6,40,000/- based on the decision of ITAT Hyderabad which held that where a regular pattern of suppression is established the lawful presumption is that there

M/S AJAY KUMAR SOOD ENGINEERS & CONTRACTORS,SHIMLA vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

The appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

house run by the assessee showing receipts of Rs. 1,61,500/- for the period of 06/06/2009 to 02/08/2009. The Assessing Officer has extrapolated this amount for the entire year to Rs. 6,40,000/- based on the decision of ITAT Hyderabad which held that where a regular pattern of suppression is established the lawful presumption is that there

M/S AJAY KUMAR SOOD ENGINEERS & CONTRACTORS,SHIMLA vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

The appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

house run by the assessee showing receipts of Rs. 1,61,500/- for the period of 06/06/2009 to 02/08/2009. The Assessing Officer has extrapolated this amount for the entire year to Rs. 6,40,000/- based on the decision of ITAT Hyderabad which held that where a regular pattern of suppression is established the lawful presumption is that there

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. M/S AJAY KUMAR SOOD ENGINEERS AND CONTRACTORS, SHIMLA

The appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

house run by the assessee showing receipts of Rs. 1,61,500/- for the period of 06/06/2009 to 02/08/2009. The Assessing Officer has extrapolated this amount for the entire year to Rs. 6,40,000/- based on the decision of ITAT Hyderabad which held that where a regular pattern of suppression is established the lawful presumption is that there

M/S AJAY KUMAR SOOD ENGINEERS & CONTRACTORS,SHIMLA vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

The appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

house run by the assessee showing receipts of Rs. 1,61,500/- for the period of 06/06/2009 to 02/08/2009. The Assessing Officer has extrapolated this amount for the entire year to Rs. 6,40,000/- based on the decision of ITAT Hyderabad which held that where a regular pattern of suppression is established the lawful presumption is that there

SH. AJAY GOEL,SHIMLA vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

The appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

house run by the assessee showing receipts of Rs. 1,61,500/- for the period of 06/06/2009 to 02/08/2009. The Assessing Officer has extrapolated this amount for the entire year to Rs. 6,40,000/- based on the decision of ITAT Hyderabad which held that where a regular pattern of suppression is established the lawful presumption is that there

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.:

House Property" and Rs. 131-Chd-2023 – Shri Abhishek Bansal, Barnala 6 10,76,719/- under the head "Income from Other Sources." It is submitted that a survey action was conducted at the professional premises of the assessee on 26.09.2016. During the said survey, certain discrepancies were found and statement of the assessee was recorded. In the said statement

M/S SATWANT AGRO ENGINEERS,BHAWANIGARH vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, PATIALA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

sections 69, 69A and 69C being treated separately, because such deemed income is not income from salary, house property, profits

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD), LUDHIANA vs. M/S SHEETAL INDUSTRIES , KHANNA

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahay

69C and advances made to Sundry Parties is covered u/s 69, 69B or 69D is like an open ended hypothesis which is not supported by any specific finding that the matter shall fall under which of the specific sections and how the conditions stated therein are satisfied before the said provisions are invoked. It is like laying a general rule

MRS. KIRAN BALA,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-III, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

69C and advances made to Sundry Parties is covered u/s 69, 69B or 69D is like an open ended hypothesis which is not supported by any specific finding that the matter shall fall under which of the specific sections and how the conditions stated therein are satisfied before the said provisions are invoked. It is like laying a general rule