SBS BIOTECH UNIT II,SIRMOUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

68,78,900/- after claiming deduction under section 80IC @ 100% amounting to Rs. 15,12,63,064/-. The return

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

100,00,000/- 28. As regards the provisions of 115BBE of the IT Act. 1961, the same is as under: - 175-Chd-2023– Shri Krishan Kumar, Khanna 4 "Tax on income referred to in section 68

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

SWARN GANGA JEWELLERS,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 4(1) NOW DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: This Tribunal Being Aggrieved By An Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/1045180258(1) For A.Y. 2017-18 Dt. 05/09/2022 Which Is Hereinafter Referred To As The “Impugned Order”. The Impugned Order Is Passed By Cit(A) In Terms Of Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. Factual Matrix 2. That Survey U/S 133A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Was Conducted On The Business Premises Of The Assessee On 06/09/2016. The Assessee Surrendered A Sum Of Rs. 50,00,000/- During The Survey & Paid Tax Thereon. The Return Of Income Was Filed On 01/11/2017 Declaring A Total Income Of Rs. 89,48,260/-. Thereafter The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny Under Compulsory Scrutiny Guidelines & Notice Under Section 143(2) Of The Act Was Issued On 11/09/2018. The Assessment Was Finalised Vide Order Dt. 23/12/2019 Whereby Addition Of Rs. 95,70,882/- Was Made U/S 68 R.W..S 115Bbe Of The Act.

section 143(2) of the Act was issued on 11/09/2018. The assessment was finalised vide order dt. 23/12/2019 whereby addition of Rs. 95,70,882/- was made u/s 68 r.w..s 115BBE of the Act. 3. During the period commencing from 09/11/2016 to 31/12/2016 (demonetisation period) the assessee had deposited sum of Rs. 1,18,88,500/- in their

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 , LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA vs. NICE EXPORTS PRIVATE LIMITED, A-15A, PHASE-VII,, FOCAL POINT, LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

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

section 68, which squarely lies upon the assessee. 12. The Ld. DR submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in placing reliance on RBI Circular No. 100

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA vs. NICE EXPORTS PRIVATE LIMITED, A-15 A PHASE, FOCAL POINT, LUDHIANA, FOCAL POINT, LUDHIANA

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: or at the time of hearing of appeal.

section 68, which squarely lies upon the assessee. 12. The Ld. DR submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in placing reliance on RBI Circular No. 100

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 , LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA vs. NICE EXPORTS PRIVATE LIMITED, A-15A, PHASE-VII, FOCAL POINT, LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

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

section 68, which squarely lies upon the assessee. 12. The Ld. DR submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in placing reliance on RBI Circular No. 100

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

68 of the Act by ignoring the relevant specific facts and circumstances of the case and by relying on extraneous arguments and evidences, including in particular, circumstantial evidence, which has no bearing and applicability to the case. 3. That the Ld Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Gurgaon was not justified to uphold the action of the Ld. Assessing Officer

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

68 of the Act by ignoring the relevant specific facts and circumstances of the case and by relying on extraneous arguments and evidences, including in particular, circumstantial evidence, which has no bearing and applicability to the case. 3. That the Ld Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Gurgaon was not justified to uphold the action of the Ld. Assessing Officer

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

68 of the Act by ignoring the relevant specific facts and circumstances of the case and by relying on extraneous arguments and evidences, including in particular, circumstantial evidence, which has no bearing and applicability to the case. 3. That the Ld Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Gurgaon was not justified to uphold the action of the Ld. Assessing Officer

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

68 of the Act by ignoring the relevant specific facts and circumstances of the case and by relying on extraneous arguments and evidences, including in particular, circumstantial evidence, which has no bearing and applicability to the case. 3. That the Ld Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Gurgaon was not justified to uphold the action of the Ld. Assessing Officer

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

68 of the Act by ignoring the relevant specific facts and circumstances of the case and by relying on extraneous arguments and evidences, including in particular, circumstantial evidence, which has no bearing and applicability to the case. 3. That the Ld Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Gurgaon was not justified to uphold the action of the Ld. Assessing Officer

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

68 of the Act by ignoring the relevant specific facts and circumstances of the case and by relying on extraneous arguments and evidences, including in particular, circumstantial evidence, which has no bearing and applicability to the case. 3. That the Ld Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Gurgaon was not justified to uphold the action of the Ld. Assessing Officer

SANJAY SINGAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 132(4) of the Act, by Shri Shrish Chandrakant Shah and Shri R.K. Kedia, were supported by seizure of a large number of incriminating documents, during the course of search proceedings carried out in their cases, including cash books reflecting flow of ITA 655/CHD/2023 & ITA 610/CHD/2023 A.Y. 2015-16 6 unaccounted cash from such beneficiaries, including the appellant

M/S SANJAY SINGAL HUF,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 132(4) of the Act, by Shri Shrish Chandrakant Shah and Shri R.K. Kedia, were supported by seizure of a large number of incriminating documents, during the course of search proceedings carried out in their cases, including cash books reflecting flow of ITA 655/CHD/2023 & ITA 610/CHD/2023 A.Y. 2015-16 6 unaccounted cash from such beneficiaries, including the appellant

SMT. JYOTI BHALLA,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO, WARD-3(2), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

68 of the Act and tax is charged @ 60% plus applicable surcharge as per Section 115BBE. Further, penalty u/s 271AAB of the Act for under reporting of the income is initiated.” 9. Being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who has since sustained the said addition. Against the findings and the directions

ATUL JINDAL, LUDHIANA,PUNJAB vs. DCIT CIRCLE-6 LDH CURRENT JAO ITO, WARD-1(5), LUDHIANA, PUNJAB

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: This Tribunal. 3. Briefly, The Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Individual Engaged In The Business Of Import & Trading Of Copper-Based Products Through His Proprietorship Concern, Usha Impex. The Assessee Filed The Return Of Income On 29.09.2014 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.42,83,680/-.

section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) in the assessment framed pursuant to the order passed u/s 263. 2. The assessee is aggrieved by the findings of the authorities below and is in further appeal before this Tribunal. 3. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual engaged in the business

MITHU RAM,DIRBA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, SUNAM

In the result, ground no. 4 & 5 are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Cit(A) Proves This Fact. 2. That The Assessee Was Prevented By Sufficient & Reasonable Cause In Not Attending To The Proceedings Before The Cit(A) Due Oversight/ Skip Of Mail Regarding The Date Of Hearing Because Busy In Filling The Income Tax Returns.

section 68 of the Act. 5. Being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) and it was submitted that AO erred in law by making an addition of Rs.25.60,798/- on whimsical observation, whereas appellant had filed the confirmed copy of account. It was stated that appellant had made purchase of goods

SHRI KRISHAN KUMAR JALAN,BANGALORE vs. ITO, W-1, SIRSA

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Section 68 of the Act,\nwhere any sum is found credited in the books of the assessee for any\nprevious year the same may be charged to income tax as the income of\nthe assessee of that previous year if the explanation offered by the\nassessee about the nature and source thereof is, in the opinion of the\nAssessing