M/S LUXMI BUILDERS,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the respective appeals and stay applications are disposed off in light of aforesaid directions

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

House no 834, Sector 21, Panchkula. The documents thus have been found and seized from the business premises of the assessee firm and the panchnama has been drawn accordingly. We are therefore of the considered view that the search has been duly authorised, initiated and conducted at the business premises of the assessee firm. As far as survey operations u/s

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)

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

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

house property’, (iii) ‘profits and gains from business or profession’, (iv) ‘capital gains’ and (v) ‘income from other sources’ – cannot at all be adjusted against unexplained investment or expenditure. What is necessary as per Hon. Gujarat High Court is that source of acquisition of asset or expenditure should be clearly identifiable. In the case before Hon. Gujarat High Court

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 and loss from other sources are Rs.8,73,382/-. In the profit & loss account, the assessee has shown income of Rs.45,00,000/- with narration Income from Business on A/c of shortage of cash and building exp. As surrender u/s 133A on the credit side of Profit & loss Account. iii) That the return of income was accompanied with

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)

u/s 133A of the IT Act to find out the true facts of the case when there was no compliance and cooperation on the part of the assessee to prove its primary onus. And on the basis of survey only true facts of the case were ascertained which helped in ascertaining the factual reality. The assessing office collected information u/s

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)

u/s 133A of the IT Act to find out the true facts of the case when there was no compliance and cooperation on the part of the assessee to prove its primary onus. And on the basis of survey only true facts of the case were ascertained which helped in ascertaining the factual reality. The assessing office collected information u/s

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

133A was conducted at the premises of the assessee and detailed physical verification of the stock in possession of the assessee was made. The assessee has neither recorded the investment in stock in the books nor the assessee has explained the sources of the same during the survey and assessment proceedings. 5.7 Further, the assessee failed to provide the sources

M/S SAI APARTMENTS & INFRASTRUCTURE,PANCHKULA vs. DCIT, C-6(1), MOHALI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

House No. 58, Sector – 9, Circle 6(1), VS Panchkula. Mohali. "थायी लेखा सं./PAN /TAN No: ABTFS1260Q अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent िनधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, CA राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue by : Shri Sarabjit Singh, CIT-DR तारीख/Date of Hearing : 15.03.2022 उदघोषणा क" तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 27.04.2022 HEARING VIA WEBEX

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)

house property’, (iii) ‘profits and gains from business or profession’, (iv) ‘capital gains’ and (v) ‘income from other sources’ – cannot at all be adjusted against unexplained investment or expenditure. What is necessary as per Hon. Gujarat High Court is that source of acquisition of asset or expenditure should be clearly identifiable. In the case before Hon. Gujarat High Court

ANJULA GOEL ,PARWANOO vs. DCIT, CC-II, CHANDIGARH

In the result, both the above appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Survey operation u/s 133A of the Act in case of M/s Manu Stock Broking Pvt. Ltd. on 19.04.2015, wherein statement of Shri Ritesh Jain was recorded in which he stated that Shri Ajit Tulsian and Shri Deepak Patwari were the promoters of M/s Cresanda Solutions Ltd and they were involved in providing entries on the basis of commission. During

HITEISH ARORA,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

The appeals of the Assessee are allowed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2009-10

house property, as part of total sale consideration for purposes of computing long term capital gains and in having claimed deduction u/s 54 of the Income Tax act against long term capital gains. 3. Brief facts on the issue are that a survey u/s 133A

ASHISH ARORA,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

The appeals of the Assessee are allowed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2009-10

house property, as part of total sale consideration for purposes of computing long term capital gains and in having claimed deduction u/s 54 of the Income Tax act against long term capital gains. 3. Brief facts on the issue are that a survey u/s 133A

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)

house property’, (iii) ‘profits and gains from business or profession’, (iv) ‘capital gains’ and (v) ‘income from other sources’ – cannot at all be adjusted against unexplained investment or expenditure. What is necessary as per Hon. Gujarat High Court is that source of acquisition of asset or expenditure should be clearly identifiable. In the case before Hon. Gujarat High Court

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA vs. AB ALCOBEV PRIVATE LIMITED , DELHI

In the result, appeals of Revenue are dismissed, Cross\nObjections of the assessee for

HOUSING AGENCY\nVERSUS ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1 (1), NAGPUR (Refer page no. 50-60 of case\nlaw index book)\nAssessment u/s 153A - only survey operation under section 133A - Whether\nvalid search is conducted against the assessee u/s 132? - HELD THAT:- We\nfind that the search has been initiated in the name of the assessee firm along\nwith names of partners

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, LUDHIANA , LUDHIANA vs. AB ALCOBEV PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, appeals of Revenue are dismissed, Cross\nObjections of the assessee for

HOUSING AGENCY\nVERSUS ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1 (1), NAGPUR (Refer page no. 50-60 of case\nlaw index book)\nAssessment u/s 153A - only survey operation under section 133A - Whether\nvalid search is conducted against the assessee u/s 132? - HELD THAT:- We\nfind that the search has been initiated in the name of the assessee firm along\nwith names of partners

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, LUDHIANA vs. AB ALCOBEV PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, appeals of Revenue are dismissed, Cross\nObjections of the assessee for

HOUSING AGENCY\nVERSUS ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1 (1), NAGPUR (Refer page no. 50-60 of case\nlaw index book)\nAssessment u/s 153A - only survey operation under section 133A - Whether\nvalid search is conducted against the assessee u/s 132? - HELD THAT:- We\nfind that the search has been initiated in the name of the assessee firm along\nwith names of partners

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, LUDHIANA vs. AB ALCOBEV PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, appeals of Revenue are dismissed, Cross\nObjections of the assessee for

HOUSING AGENCY\nVERSUS ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1 (1), NAGPUR (Refer page no. 50-60 of case\nlaw index book)\nviii)\nAssessment u/s 153A - only survey operation under section 133A - Whether\nvalid search is conducted against the assessee u/s 132? - HELD THAT:- We\nfind that the search has been initiated in the name of the assessee firm along\nwith names

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

house property’, (iii) ‘profits and gains from business or profession’, (iv) ‘capital gains’ and (v) ‘income from other sources’ – cannot at all be adjusted against unexplained investment or expenditure. What is necessary as per Hon. Gujarat High Court is that source of acquisition of asset or expenditure should be clearly identifiable. In the case before Hon. Gujarat High Court

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)

house property’, (iii) ‘profits and gains from business or profession’, (iv) ‘capital gains’ and (v) ‘income from other sources’ – cannot at all be adjusted against unexplained investment or expenditure. What is necessary as per Hon. Gujarat High Court is that source of acquisition of asset or expenditure should be clearly identifiable. In the case before Hon. Gujarat High Court