DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. PARAMJIT SINGH, MOHALI

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

115 BBE and section 271AAC for the sake of convenience are reproduced as under;- 115BBE. (1) Where the total income of an assessee,— (a) includes any income referred to in section 68

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. JASWANT KAUR, MOHALI

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

115 BBE and section 271AAC for the sake of convenience are reproduced as under;- 115BBE. (1) Where the total income of an assessee,— (a) includes any income referred to in section 68

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. PARAMJIT SINGH, MOHALI

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

115 BBE and section 271AAC for the sake of convenience are reproduced as under;- 115BBE. (1) Where the total income of an assessee,— (a) includes any income referred to in section 68

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. KULWANT SINGH, MOHALI

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

115 BBE and section 271AAC for the sake of convenience are reproduced as under;- 115BBE. (1) Where the total income of an assessee,— (a) includes any income referred to in section 68

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. JASWANT KAUR, MOHALI

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

115 BBE and section 271AAC for the sake of convenience are reproduced as under;- 115BBE. (1) Where the total income of an assessee,— (a) includes any income referred to in section 68

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

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

68, 69, 69A, 69B and 69C, 72 and 115BBE of the IT. Act, 1961 have been misconstrued and misapplied in the Appellant's case 5. The Appellant craves leave to add, amend, modify and/or add new Grounds of Appeal before the Appeal is heard and disposed

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

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

M/S LUXMI FOODGRAINS PVT. LTD.,KURALI vs. ITO, W-6(4), MOHALI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Tribunal Against Order Of The Ld.Cit(A)-2, Chandigarh Passed For The Asstt.Year 2013-14. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Taken By The Assessee Were Not In Consonance With Rule 8 Of The Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 - They Are Descriptive & Argumentative In Nature. However, The Assessee Has Amended These Grounds Of Appeal & Filed Fresh Grounds Wherein It Has Taken Four Grounds. A Perusal Of These Grounds Would Reveal That Grievance Of The Assessee Revolves Around Single Issue Viz. The Ld.Cit(A)

115 equity shares having face value of Rs.10/- each. It charged share premium of Rs.590/- per equity share resulting in increase in share capital by Rs.1,13,150/- and in share premium by Rs.77,37,850/-.The Assessing Officer was of the view that fair market value per share has to be calculated under Rule 11UA which comes to Rs.156