SH. AKHIL JAIN,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-III, LUDHIANA

In the result, the ground no

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

68 arbitrarily. These are actual long term capital gains earned by the assessee. h) All the documents in the shape of share certificates issued by Maple Goods Pvt. Ltd. which are part of annexure A containing 1 to 182 pages have been doubted under the words Character of Certificates, inspite of the fact that the AO has not doubted

SH. ASHISH JAIN,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-III, LUDHIANA

In the result, the ground no

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

68 arbitrarily. These are actual long term capital gains earned by the assessee. h) All the documents in the shape of share certificates issued by Maple Goods Pvt. Ltd. which are part of annexure A containing 1 to 182 pages have been doubted under the words Character of Certificates, inspite of the fact that the AO has not doubted

SH. ASHISH JAIN,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-III, LUDHIANA

In the result, the ground no

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

68 arbitrarily. These are actual long term capital gains earned by the assessee. h) All the documents in the shape of share certificates issued by Maple Goods Pvt. Ltd. which are part of annexure A containing 1 to 182 pages have been doubted under the words Character of Certificates, inspite of the fact that the AO has not doubted

SH. BIPAN JAIN,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-III, LUDHIANA

In the result, the ground no

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

68 arbitrarily. These are actual long term capital gains earned by the assessee. h) All the documents in the shape of share certificates issued by Maple Goods Pvt. Ltd. which are part of annexure A containing 1 to 182 pages have been doubted under the words Character of Certificates, inspite of the fact that the AO has not doubted

WINSOME TEXTILE INDUSTRIES LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1), CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

section 68 Income Tax Act, 1961 are without any basis and on the reliance of SEBI investigation of the lead manager to the issue, the SEBI report was also available on record as shown to the Authorised Representative of the assessee before the issue of the first notice of reassessment

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHANDIGARH vs. WINSOME TEXTILE INDUSTRIES LTD, CHANDIGARH

reassessment proceedings under section 147 vide letter dt.\n19/12/2018 which were disposed off by the AO by passing a separate order dt.\n19/12/2018. Thereafter, after issuance of notice under section 143(2) and 142(1)\nand after calling for necessary information and documentation as well as issue\nof specific show cause notice, the AO made an addition of Rs.82

SAWASTIKA PRINTING & PACKAGING,KALA MAB vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, NAHAN

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: the Hon'ble CIT(A)(NFAC) that assessee is having business turnover of Rs 16,77,30,943/-. While upholding the additions of Rs 20,81,000/- the Hon'ble CIT(A) (NFAC) has observed in last para of his order as under:-

reassessment framed under section 147 read with section 144 could not be held to be invalid. Accordingly, the grounds challenging jurisdiction and legality of assessment were dismissed. 4.1 On merits of the addition under section 68

M/S PNG TRADING PRIVATE LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all four appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

68) and Rs.3,28,500/- (under Section 69) as unexplained expenditure are uncalled for because no incriminating material has been found during the course of search relevant to such additions. In substance, the plea taken under Ground No. 2 and 3 also revolves around this additional ground. Thus, the whole issue involved in the present appeal is whether any addition

M/S PNG TRADING PRIVATE LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all four appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

68) and Rs.3,28,500/- (under Section 69) as unexplained expenditure are uncalled for because no incriminating material has been found during the course of search relevant to such additions. In substance, the plea taken under Ground No. 2 and 3 also revolves around this additional ground. Thus, the whole issue involved in the present appeal is whether any addition

M/S PNG TRADING PRIVATE LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all four appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

68) and Rs.3,28,500/- (under Section 69) as unexplained expenditure are uncalled for because no incriminating material has been found during the course of search relevant to such additions. In substance, the plea taken under Ground No. 2 and 3 also revolves around this additional ground. Thus, the whole issue involved in the present appeal is whether any addition

M/S PNG TRADING PRIVATE LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all four appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

68) and Rs.3,28,500/- (under Section 69) as unexplained expenditure are uncalled for because no incriminating material has been found during the course of search relevant to such additions. In substance, the plea taken under Ground No. 2 and 3 also revolves around this additional ground. Thus, the whole issue involved in the present appeal is whether any addition

SMT. AARTI SINGAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

68 Rs. 40,05,419/- Rs. 2,40,956/- 6.5% of NET gain (LTCG) u/s 69C towards commission expenses Rs.42,46,375/- TOTAL Addition to the returned income 19. Being aggrieved the assessee carried the matter to the Ld. CIT(A) and challenged the validity of the initiation of proceedings under section 153A of the Act as no incriminating material

SMT. AARTI SINGAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

68 Rs. 40,05,419/- Rs. 2,40,956/- 6.5% of NET gain (LTCG) u/s 69C towards commission expenses Rs.42,46,375/- TOTAL Addition to the returned income 19. Being aggrieved the assessee carried the matter to the Ld. CIT(A) and challenged the validity of the initiation of proceedings under section 153A of the Act as no incriminating material

SH. SANJAY SINGAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

68 Rs. 40,05,419/- Rs. 2,40,956/- 6.5% of NET gain (LTCG) u/s 69C towards commission expenses Rs.42,46,375/- TOTAL Addition to the returned income 19. Being aggrieved the assessee carried the matter to the Ld. CIT(A) and challenged the validity of the initiation of proceedings under section 153A of the Act as no incriminating material

SH. SANJAY SINGAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

68 Rs. 40,05,419/- Rs. 2,40,956/- 6.5% of NET gain (LTCG) u/s 69C towards commission expenses Rs.42,46,375/- TOTAL Addition to the returned income 19. Being aggrieved the assessee carried the matter to the Ld. CIT(A) and challenged the validity of the initiation of proceedings under section 153A of the Act as no incriminating material

SMT. AARTI SINGAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

68 Rs. 40,05,419/- Rs. 2,40,956/- 6.5% of NET gain (LTCG) u/s 69C towards commission expenses Rs.42,46,375/- TOTAL Addition to the returned income 19. Being aggrieved the assessee carried the matter to the Ld. CIT(A) and challenged the validity of the initiation of proceedings under section 153A of the Act as no incriminating material

SH. SANJAY SINGAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

68 Rs. 40,05,419/- Rs. 2,40,956/- 6.5% of NET gain (LTCG) u/s 69C towards commission expenses Rs.42,46,375/- TOTAL Addition to the returned income 19. Being aggrieved the assessee carried the matter to the Ld. CIT(A) and challenged the validity of the initiation of proceedings under section 153A of the Act as no incriminating material

JAMNA DASS NIKKAMAL JAIN SARAF PRIVATE LIMITED, LUDHIANA,LUDHIANA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal filed by Revenue is dismissed and the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

reassessment not only. procedurally defective but also without jurisdiction. 33. Even we find while framing the assessment under section 143(3), the Assessing Officer (AO) has, on the last page of the assessment order, referred to an approval obtained from the supervisory authority. However, a bare perusal of this approval shows that it was obtained in reference