M/S AGYA RAM MANOHAR LAL,KHANNA vs. PR.CIT(CENTRAL), LUDHIANA

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

120 taxman 11. 5. In his rejoinder, the Ld. AR submitted that the Ld. CIT, DR had argued that once the Assessing Officer having mentioned in the order, while making the addition u/s 69C as per para 3.11 of the Assessing Officer's order, then the provisions of section 115BBE are automatically applicable is not correct. It was submitted

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.

68 has to be assessed under section 56. In the case before us, source of unexplained cash credits is not known and hence they cannot be linked to any known source/head of income including income from other sources. In order to constitute 'income from 'other sources', the source, namely, the "other sources", has to be identified. Income from unexplained

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

section 68 of the Act. The reliance was placed on the following case laws: i. CIT Vs. N.R. Portfolio Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No. 1018,1019/2100 (Delhi) dt. 22/11/2013 ii. CIT Vs. Nova Prompters and Finlease (P) Ltd. (Del) reported at 342 ITR 169 iii. CIT Vs. Krishnaveni Ammal (Mad) reported at 158 ITR 826 iv. Madathi Brothers

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

section 68 of the Act. The reliance was placed on the following case laws: i. CIT Vs. N.R. Portfolio Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No. 1018,1019/2100 (Delhi) dt. 22/11/2013 ii. CIT Vs. Nova Prompters and Finlease (P) Ltd. (Del) reported at 342 ITR 169 iii. CIT Vs. Krishnaveni Ammal (Mad) reported at 158 ITR 826 iv. Madathi Brothers

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

section 68 of the Act. The reliance was placed on the following case laws: i. CIT Vs. N.R. Portfolio Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No. 1018,1019/2100 (Delhi) dt. 22/11/2013 ii. CIT Vs. Nova Prompters and Finlease (P) Ltd. (Del) reported at 342 ITR 169 iii. CIT Vs. Krishnaveni Ammal (Mad) reported at 158 ITR 826 iv. Madathi Brothers

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

section 68 of the Act. The reliance was placed on the following case laws: i. CIT Vs. N.R. Portfolio Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No. 1018,1019/2100 (Delhi) dt. 22/11/2013 ii. CIT Vs. Nova Prompters and Finlease (P) Ltd. (Del) reported at 342 ITR 169 iii. CIT Vs. Krishnaveni Ammal (Mad) reported at 158 ITR 826 iv. Madathi Brothers

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

section 68 of the Act. The reliance was placed on the following case laws: i. CIT Vs. N.R. Portfolio Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No. 1018,1019/2100 (Delhi) dt. 22/11/2013 ii. CIT Vs. Nova Prompters and Finlease (P) Ltd. (Del) reported at 342 ITR 169 iii. CIT Vs. Krishnaveni Ammal (Mad) reported at 158 ITR 826 iv. Madathi Brothers

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

section 68 of the Act. The reliance was placed on the following case laws: i. CIT Vs. N.R. Portfolio Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No. 1018,1019/2100 (Delhi) dt. 22/11/2013 ii. CIT Vs. Nova Prompters and Finlease (P) Ltd. (Del) reported at 342 ITR 169 iii. CIT Vs. Krishnaveni Ammal (Mad) reported at 158 ITR 826 iv. Madathi Brothers

SH. SUNIL KHULLAR,SAMRALA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE, KHANNA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavi.T.A. No.137/Chandi/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Shri Sunil Khullar........................... ………................……............…..….. Appellant C/O Sat Parkash & Company, Ward No.7, H.No.10, Kang Mohalla, Samrala. [Pan:Azqpk0380E] Vs. Dcit, Circle-Khanna....................................................…..............……. Respondent Appearances By: Shri J. S. Bhasin, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Sarabjeet Singh, Cit, Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 27, 2022 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 30, 2022 Order

section 145(3) when the books were found to be incomplete and incorrect, rather than making superfluously inflated additions u/s 68 and 40A(3), and rejection of this ground by Id.CIT(A) is arbitrary and unjustified. 6. That the order under appeal, to the extent disputed herein, is against law and facts of the case. 3. A perusal

SHRI GURU RAM DASS EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,MOHALI vs. PR.CIT(CENTRAL) GURGAON, AT CHANDIGARH

section (1) or (2) of sec. 120 of the Act stood divested of the same. Further, the CIT (Exemption) was also divested of his jurisdiction and all the powers, in respect of this case by virtue of transfer order u/s. 127 of the Act. The reliance was placed on the following case laws: • Ramshila Enterprises (P.) Ltd. Vs. PCIT

CHANDIGARH EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,MOHALI vs. PR.CIT(CENTRAL)-GURGAON, AT CHANDIGARH

section (1) or (2) of sec. 120 of the Act stood divested of the same. Further, the CIT (Exemption) was also divested of his jurisdiction and all the powers, in respect of this case by virtue of transfer order u/s. 127 of the Act. The reliance was placed on the following case laws: • Ramshila Enterprises (P.) Ltd. Vs. PCIT

CHANDIGARH EDUCATIONAL TRUST,MOHALI vs. PR.CIT-CENTRAL,GURGAON, AT CHANDIGARH

section (1) or (2) of sec. 120 of the Act stood divested of the same. Further, the CIT (Exemption) was also divested of his jurisdiction and all the powers, in respect of this case by virtue of transfer order u/s. 127 of the Act. The reliance was placed on the following case laws: • Ramshila Enterprises (P.) Ltd. Vs. PCIT

DCIT,CIRCLE-I, LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA vs. ADINATH TEXTILES LIMITED, LUDHIANA

In the result both the appeal filed by the Revenue and Cross objection filed by the Assessee are dismissed

Bench: the appeal is finally heard or disposed off.

section 68 the Income Tax Act, 1961amounting to R- 2,20,32,738/-. 4. That Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi erred on facts and law, in deleting the addition u/s 69Cof the Income Tax As on account of explained expenditure amounting toRs.3,83,50,000/- 5. That the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi erred on facts

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

M/S DIN DAYAL PURSOTAM LAL,SIRSA vs. PR.CIT, ROHTAK

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

68) was filed by the Market Committee, Dabwali, before the AO, stating that as per their ITA 146,147 & 148/CHD/2021 A.Y. 2011-12, 2015-16 & 2016-17 13 office record available, there was no firm registered as M/s Gaja Nand Pardeep Kumar, Shop No.209, New Grain Market, Dabwali during the year 2010-11. On 11.12.2018, a reply

M/S DIN DAYAL PURSOTAM LAL,SIRSA vs. PR.CIT, ROHTAK

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

68) was filed by the Market Committee, Dabwali, before the AO, stating that as per their ITA 146,147 & 148/CHD/2021 A.Y. 2011-12, 2015-16 & 2016-17 13 office record available, there was no firm registered as M/s Gaja Nand Pardeep Kumar, Shop No.209, New Grain Market, Dabwali during the year 2010-11. On 11.12.2018, a reply

M/S DIN DAYAL PURSOTAM LAL,SIRSA vs. PR.CIT, ROHTAK

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

68) was filed by the Market Committee, Dabwali, before the AO, stating that as per their ITA 146,147 & 148/CHD/2021 A.Y. 2011-12, 2015-16 & 2016-17 13 office record available, there was no firm registered as M/s Gaja Nand Pardeep Kumar, Shop No.209, New Grain Market, Dabwali during the year 2010-11. On 11.12.2018, a reply

M/S AMAR CONTRUCTION AND ENGINEER ,SANGRUR vs. PCTI, PATIALA

In the result, all the appeals of the respective assessees stands allowed

68,578/- being remuneration and interest respectively paid to partners may not be disallowed for the reason that the assessee had failed to provide a copy of partnership deed in this regard. 2.7 In response, it was the assessee’s submission that it had carried out the work as a subcontractor and had filed the return of income u/s 44AD

M/S GANGA CONSTRUCTIONS,SANGURUR vs. PCIT, PATIALA

In the result, all the appeals of the respective assessees stands allowed

68,578/- being remuneration and interest respectively paid to partners may not be disallowed for the reason that the assessee had failed to provide a copy of partnership deed in this regard. 2.7 In response, it was the assessee’s submission that it had carried out the work as a subcontractor and had filed the return of income u/s 44AD