DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. PARAMJIT SINGH, MOHALI

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

income referred to in section 68, section 69, section 69A, section 69B, section 69C or section 69D for any previous year, the assessee shall pay by way of penalty, in addition

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. JASWANT KAUR, MOHALI

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

income referred to in section 68, section 69, section 69A, section 69B, section 69C or section 69D for any previous year, the assessee shall pay by way of penalty, in addition

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. PARAMJIT SINGH, MOHALI

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

income referred to in section 68, section 69, section 69A, section 69B, section 69C or section 69D for any previous year, the assessee shall pay by way of penalty, in addition

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. MANJIT KAUR, CHANDIGARH

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

income referred to in section 68, section 69, section 69A, section 69B, section 69C or section 69D for any previous year, the assessee shall pay by way of penalty, in addition

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. JASWANT KAUR, MOHALI

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

income referred to in section 68, section 69, section 69A, section 69B, section 69C or section 69D for any previous year, the assessee shall pay by way of penalty, in addition

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. KULWANT SINGH, MOHALI

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

income referred to in section 68, section 69, section 69A, section 69B, section 69C or section 69D for any previous year, the assessee shall pay by way of penalty, in addition

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. KULWANT SINGH, MOHALI

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

income referred to in section 68, section 69, section 69A, section 69B, section 69C or section 69D for any previous year, the assessee shall pay by way of penalty, in addition

SHRI BHUWAN GOYAL,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-1, LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

68, 69, 69A, 69B, 69C or 69D reflected in the return of income furnished under section 139 of the Act. However, in the present case no such income was reflected in the return filed under section 139 of the Act rather the income was declared in the return filed under section 153A of the Act after the search. The assessee

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.

68 has to be assessed under section 56. In the case before us, source of unexplained cash credits is not known and hence they cannot be linked to any known source/head of income including income from other sources. In order to constitute 'income from 'other sources', the source, namely, the "other sources", has to be identified. Income from unexplained

INCOME TAX OFFICER, PARWANOO vs. DEEPAK KUMAR, NAHAN

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

income on account of difference of stock as pointed out by the survey team and the same was accepted by the AO during the course of assessment proceedings. It was further submitted that the provisions of Section 115BBE can be attracted only where the addition is made under section 68

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

68 of the Act and computed the Tax liability under the provisions of the section 115BBE of the Act." 7.7 As regards, the charging of income tax @ 60% invoking the provisions of section 115BBE on the income declared by 175-Chd-2023– Shri Krishan Kumar, Khanna 18 the Assessee in its return of income. The Assessee has already made

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

68, section 69, section 69A, section 69B, section 69C or section 69D, if such income is not covered under clause (a), the income-tax payable shall be the aggregate of- (i) the amount of income-tax calculated on the income referred to in clause (a) and clause (b), at the rate of sixty per cent; and (ii) the amount

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)

additional income as business income in his return of income and paid due taxes thereon. 20. In our view, what is relevant before invoking the deeming provisions is not just the factum of survey action but besides that, what is the explanation so offered by the assessee explaining the nature and source of income so found during the course

ANUPAM,BARNALA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BARNALA

In the result, Assessee’s appeal is allowed

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

68, section 69, section 69A, section 69B, section 69C or section 69D and . ii) The assesse offers no explanation about the nature and source thereof or the explanation offered by him is not, in the opinion of assessing officer satisfactory. In this case survey was carried out at the business premises of the assessee on 26.09.2016. During the course

M/S AGYA RAM MANOHAR LAL,KHANNA vs. PR.CIT(CENTRAL), LUDHIANA

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

68, section 69, section 69A, section 69B, section 69C or section 69D, if such income is not covered under clause (a) the income-tax payable shall be the aggregate of- (i) the amount of income-tax calculated on the income referred to in clause(a) and clause (b), at the rate of sixty per cent; and ” (ii) the amount

TARLOCHAN SINGH ,BHAWANIGARH vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, PATIALA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

addition of Rs. 14,00,000/- on account of unexplained investment as deemed income u/s 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. SECTION 68

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)

additional income as business income in his return of income and paid due taxes thereon. 20. In our view, what is relevant before invoking the deeming provisions is not just the factum of survey action but besides that, what is the explanation so offered by the assessee explaining the nature and source of income so found during the course

SH. SUNIL KUMAR,SIRSA vs. PR. C.I.T., ROHTAK

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

additional income disclosed by the assessee be not subjected to higher rate of tax i.e. @ 60% as per provisions of Section 115BBE of the Act. The ld. PCIT observed that the AO had failed to acknowledge the fact that the surrender represented the undisclosed income of the assessee which would have never come to light, had there been no survey

SH. SURENDER KUMAR,KAITHAL vs. PR. C.I.T., ROHTAK

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

additional income disclosed by the assessee be not subjected to higher rate of tax i.e. @ 60% as per provisions of Section 115BBE of the Act. The ld. PCIT observed that the AO had failed to acknowledge the fact that the surrender represented the undisclosed income of the assessee which would have never come to light, had there been no survey