SH. MARTIN EKKA S/O SH. LALSAY EKKA,PANCHKULA vs. ITO, WARD -1, PANCHKULA

In the result, the ground no

Bench: SH. SANJAY GARG (Judicial Member)

68, Shiv Shakti Colony, Pinjore. "थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AAEPE4364R अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee by : Smt. Neelam Dhiman, C.A. राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue by : Shri Dharamvir, JCIT, Sr.DR सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 26.03.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement : 27.03.2024 आदेश/ORDER The present appeal has been

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)

68 nor u/s 69 of Income Tax Act 1961. 4. That the Ld Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was not justified to reject the contention of appellant that entire sales of Rs.42,80,000.00 as unrecorded were duly credited back in partners account against which entry in books was made and is business income of appellant. 5. That

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. KULWANT SINGH, MOHALI

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

22. So far as the arguments of the Ld. DR that such an interpretation would defeat the purpose of provisions of section 115BBE substituted by Taxation Law (2 n d Amendment) Act, 2016 w.e.f. 1.4.2017 and section 271AAC of the Act w.e.f. 1.4.2017. In our view, the above contention of the Ld. DR is not tenable. The relevant

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. JASWANT KAUR, MOHALI

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

22. So far as the arguments of the Ld. DR that such an interpretation would defeat the purpose of provisions of section 115BBE substituted by Taxation Law (2 n d Amendment) Act, 2016 w.e.f. 1.4.2017 and section 271AAC of the Act w.e.f. 1.4.2017. In our view, the above contention of the Ld. DR is not tenable. The relevant

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. PARAMJIT SINGH, MOHALI

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

22. So far as the arguments of the Ld. DR that such an interpretation would defeat the purpose of provisions of section 115BBE substituted by Taxation Law (2 n d Amendment) Act, 2016 w.e.f. 1.4.2017 and section 271AAC of the Act w.e.f. 1.4.2017. In our view, the above contention of the Ld. DR is not tenable. The relevant

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. JASWANT KAUR, MOHALI

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

22. So far as the arguments of the Ld. DR that such an interpretation would defeat the purpose of provisions of section 115BBE substituted by Taxation Law (2 n d Amendment) Act, 2016 w.e.f. 1.4.2017 and section 271AAC of the Act w.e.f. 1.4.2017. In our view, the above contention of the Ld. DR is not tenable. The relevant

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. MANJIT KAUR, CHANDIGARH

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

22. So far as the arguments of the Ld. DR that such an interpretation would defeat the purpose of provisions of section 115BBE substituted by Taxation Law (2 n d Amendment) Act, 2016 w.e.f. 1.4.2017 and section 271AAC of the Act w.e.f. 1.4.2017. In our view, the above contention of the Ld. DR is not tenable. The relevant

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. PARAMJIT SINGH, MOHALI

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

22. So far as the arguments of the Ld. DR that such an interpretation would defeat the purpose of provisions of section 115BBE substituted by Taxation Law (2 n d Amendment) Act, 2016 w.e.f. 1.4.2017 and section 271AAC of the Act w.e.f. 1.4.2017. In our view, the above contention of the Ld. DR is not tenable. The relevant

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. KULWANT SINGH, MOHALI

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

22. So far as the arguments of the Ld. DR that such an interpretation would defeat the purpose of provisions of section 115BBE substituted by Taxation Law (2 n d Amendment) Act, 2016 w.e.f. 1.4.2017 and section 271AAC of the Act w.e.f. 1.4.2017. In our view, the above contention of the Ld. DR is not tenable. The relevant

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)

68 in respect of the income so surrendered as business income. It was further submitted that the provisions of Section 115BBE cannot straight be applied and only in a situation where the AO has invoked the deeming provision, the rate of tax has to be determined as per the provisions of Section 115BBE of the Act. Further, reliance

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

10 A.Y.2014-15 & A.Y.2013-14 nature/source, for computation purposes under chapter IV and thereafter provides for setting off of losses in a specific manner under chapter VI of the Act. If it is from any of the sources as specified in the heads for taxation under Chapter-IV of the Act, the income therefrom it is to be computed

ANIKET SINGAL,NEW DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the above appeals are allowed

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 939/Chd/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Shri Aniket Singal बनाम The DCIT 4, Amritashergil Marg, New Delhi- 110003 Central Circle-1 Chandigarh स्थायी लेखा सं./ PAN NO: CZCPS6126E अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 1145/Chd/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Smt. Aarti Singal बनाम The DCIT 53, Jor Bagh, New Delhi-110003 Central Circle-1 Chandigarh स

68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and subsequently denying claim of exemption u/s 10(38). 2. That the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) further gravely erred in upholding the action of the Learned Assessing Officer in making an addition of Rs. 1,76,33,254/- on account of alleged commission expenses allegedly paid by the appellant for arranging

AARTI SINGAL,NEW DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the above appeals are allowed

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 939/Chd/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Shri Aniket Singal बनाम The DCIT Central Circle-1 Chandigarh 4, Amritashergil Marg, New Delhi- 110003 स्थायी लेखा सं./ PAN NO: CZCPS6126E अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 1145/Chd/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Smt. Aarti Singal बनाम The DCIT Central Circle-1 Chandigarh 53, Jor Bagh, New Delhi-110003 स

68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and subsequently denying claim of exemption u/s 10(38). 2. That the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) further gravely erred in upholding the action of the Learned Assessing Officer in making an addition of Rs. 1,76,33,254/- on account of alleged commission expenses allegedly paid by the appellant for arranging

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.

10 of brief submissions dated 03.07.2023) against the CIT(A)'s observations/ reliance of judgments in his order from para 5.1 onwards are as under:- In addition to this, it is hereby submitted that in the order passed by the Worthy CIT(A) dated 20.01.2023, the worthy CIT(A) has placed his reliance on the judgments in the case

M/S PAGRO FROZEN FOODS PVT. LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO, W-2(3), CHANDIGARH

The appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

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

22. The Ld. AO in Para 3.9 of assessment order has stated / spoken about – Explanation 10 to Section 43(1) which states as under:- [Explanation 10: “ Where a portion of the cost of an asset acquired by the assessee has been met directly or indirectly by the Central Government or a State Government or any authority established under

SH. ASHOK JINDAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

section 2(22)(e) be deleted for both the years of the assessee’s appeal. 9. Regarding the Ground No. 3 pertaining to the addition of Rs. 12.58 Lacs on account of seized material the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of notings on the seized material. 10. Before

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. ASHOK JINDAL, CHANDIGARH

section 2(22)(e) be deleted for both the years of the assessee’s appeal. 9. Regarding the Ground No. 3 pertaining to the addition of Rs. 12.58 Lacs on account of seized material the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of notings on the seized material. 10. Before

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