DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. KULWANT SINGH, MOHALI

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

100% of 300% of the amount of tax sought to be evaded. 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

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. MANJIT KAUR, CHANDIGARH

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

100% of 300% of the amount of tax sought to be evaded. 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

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. KULWANT SINGH, MOHALI

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

100% of 300% of the amount of tax sought to be evaded. 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

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. PARAMJIT SINGH, MOHALI

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

100% of 300% of the amount of tax sought to be evaded. 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

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. JASWANT KAUR, MOHALI

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

100% of 300% of the amount of tax sought to be evaded. 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

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. PARAMJIT SINGH, MOHALI

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

100% of 300% of the amount of tax sought to be evaded. 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

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. JASWANT KAUR, MOHALI

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

100% of 300% of the amount of tax sought to be evaded. 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

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

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

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