INCOME TAX OFFICER, CHANDIGARH vs. SANBIR SINGH, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

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

Section 68 r.w.s. 115 BBE of Act. 11. The ld. CIT(A) has held (relevant portions) as follows : “7.3 Finding

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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC-1, LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA vs. SHREE GANESH EDIBLES PVT. LTD., KHANNA

The appeal stand dismissed

Bench: SHRI RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

section 68 of the Act, deeming provisions postulate that it is possible that the assessee may circulate its own unaccounted money in the shape of bogus persons and therefore legal onus has been created. What is relevant is the identity, creditworthiness of the depositors and genuineness of the transaction. All these three conditions have been established and onus

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC-1, LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA vs. SHREE GANESH EDIBLES PVT. LTD., KHANNA

The appeal stand dismissed

Bench: SHRI RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

section 68 of the Act, deeming provisions postulate that it is possible that the assessee may circulate its own unaccounted money in the shape of bogus persons and therefore legal onus has been created. What is relevant is the identity, creditworthiness of the depositors and genuineness of the transaction. All these three conditions have been established and onus

SH. ABHISHEK BANSAL,BARNALA vs. PR. CIT, PATIALA

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Dr Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 131/Chd/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Abhishek Bansal, Vs. Pr. Commissioner बनाम Prop. M/S Lifeline Multi Income Tax, Specialilty Hospitality, 25 Acre Patiala Extn., Near Fountain Chowk, Barnala, Punjab "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Acgpb5740E अपीलाथ" ./ Appellant ""यथ" / Respondent ( Hybrid Mode ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Sh. Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Rohit Sharma, Cit Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 09.05.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 13.06.2024 आदेश/Order Per Dr. Krinwant Sahay, A.M.:

68 or 69A, excess stock is covered u/s 69 or 69B, construction of Shed/Godown is covered u/s 69B or 69C and advances made to Sundry Parties is covered u/s 69, 69B or 69D is like an open ended hypothesis which is not supported by any specific finding that the matter shall fall under which of the specific sections

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

115 BBE of the Act. Aggrieved by this, the appellant filed an appeal before Your Honor. The appellant seeks to place on record, its preliminary legal assertions, challenging the legitimacy of an addition effected in order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act:- 1. That assessment order passed under section 143(3) by the Learned Deputy Commissioner of Income

RACHIT AGGARWAL (PROP.) ASHOK KUMAR GUPTA & CO.,LUDHIANA vs. ITO, WARD II(2), LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

section 68 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act on surmises and conjectures and ignoring the documents and details tax audit report submitted on record; 3. initiating proceedings u/s 271AAC of the Act; 4. charging interest u/s 234B, C and D of the Act. 3. The facts of the case are that the assessee deals in wholesale trade of karyana goods

SANDEEP KUMAR SANSERWAL,YAMUNANAGAR vs. ITO WARD-4, YAMUNAGAR

In the result, the addition so made is hereby directed to be deleted

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

section 68 of the Act, thereby charging tax on the same u/s. 115 BBE of the Act. 4. Being

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. CHANDIGARH HOUSING BOARD, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

68,743/-. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) where he pleaded that non-disclosure of the said interest income was under the bonafide belief that the said interest income was not the income of the assessee at all as the funds on which it accrued, was believed to be kept by it in the capacity

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-I, LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA vs. TIRUPATI BALAJI EXIM PRIVATE LIMITED, LUDHIANA

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Krinwant Sahay

68 and taxed as per section 115 BBE and penalty u/s 271AAC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 initiated

M/S SHAM JEWELLERS,CHANDIGARH vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, ITA No. 315/Chd/2022 also stands

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

68 and hence that judgment is not applicable at all. 9. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has further erred in upholding the charging of tax at 60% applying the provisions of Section 115

M/S SHAM FASHION MALL,CHANDIGARH vs. THE DY.C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCLE -1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, ITA No. 315/Chd/2022 also stands

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

68 and hence that judgment is not applicable at all. 9. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has further erred in upholding the charging of tax at 60% applying the provisions of Section 115

SH. BALJIT SINGH,LUDHIANA vs. PR. CIT, LUDHIANA -1, LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

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

68 with regard to unsecured loans and payment of interest thereon as a consequence thereof expenditure of Rs. 1,32,97,887/- has remained unexplained. The other issue dealt by him in para 4 & 5(supra) of the impugned order stands dealt with in fresh assessment order dt. 27/03/2023-i.e; the consequential order passed in pursuance to order under section

GURU NANAK STEEL TRADERS,YAMUNA NAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5, YAMUNA NAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

115 BBE which are not applicable in the instant case. 4. That the appellant craves leave to add or amend the grounds of appeal before the appeal is finally heard or disposed off. 5. That the order of Ld. Commissioner o f Income Tax(Appeals) Officer is arbitrary, opposed to the facts of the case and thus untenable.” 3. Briefly

SATYAPAL SINGH CHAUHAN HUF,AMBALA CANTT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4 AMBALA, INCOME TAX OFFICE, AMBALA

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

115 and from pages 118 to\npage 137.\nEven evidence of 'Tube well' connection\nhas been submitted before the AO as per\ncopy of the letter at page 51 and\nelectricity bills copies have, been placed\nat pages 62 to 65 of the Paper Book.\nIn para 11, it has been stated that the The AO was fully conscious

MALTI GARG,AMBALA, HARYANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5, AMBALA, HARYANA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

115 BBE of the Act is bad in law. The said section was amended by taxation laws (second amendment) Act 2016. The amendment increased the rate of tax to 60% for income determined under section 68

MOHAMMAD MUSHTAQ,PANCHKULA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE, PANCHKULA

Bench: This Tribunal. The Assessee Is Aggrieved By The Order Bearing No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-

68,628.00. For the last 10 years the assessee is regularly showing his agricultural income from the same piece of land and the same has been accepted by the Department. 4. That the Authorities below had acted unreasonable in contravention of the provisions of the Income Tax Act 1961 while making the additions of Rs.20,15,047.00 for cash deposited

M/S ROYAL LIFESTYLE JEWELLERS PVT. LTD..,BATHINDA vs. PR.CIT(CENTRAL), LUDHIANA

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.143/Chd/2021 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Royal Lifestyle Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., The Pcit, बनाम 18-A, 2Nd Floor, (Central) North Avenue Road, Ludhiana West Punjab Bagh, New Delhi

68 of the Income Tax Act are against the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. That the learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Ludhiana has failed to consider the fact that the refining loss of old gold ornaments was duly examined by the Investigating Wing on the day of search i.e. 11-02- 2016 at the time