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

131 of the Act were issued to 20 such persons but none responded. The A.O. held that having confronted with the evidence indicating sham transaction, the burden of proof shifted back on the assessee and heavy onus was cast on him under section 68 of the Act to prove his case beyond doubt by producing so called investors

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

131 of the Act were issued to 20 such persons but none responded. The A.O. held that having confronted with the evidence indicating sham transaction, the burden of proof shifted back on the assessee and heavy onus was cast on him under section 68 of the Act to prove his case beyond doubt by producing so called investors

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

131 of the Act were issued to 20 such persons but none responded. The A.O. held that having confronted with the evidence indicating sham transaction, the burden of proof shifted back on the assessee and heavy onus was cast on him under section 68 of the Act to prove his case beyond doubt by producing so called investors

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

131 of the Act were issued to 20 such persons but none responded. The A.O. held that having confronted with the evidence indicating sham transaction, the burden of proof shifted back on the assessee and heavy onus was cast on him under section 68 of the Act to prove his case beyond doubt by producing so called investors

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

131 of the Act were issued to 20 such persons but none responded. The A.O. held that having confronted with the evidence indicating sham transaction, the burden of proof shifted back on the assessee and heavy onus was cast on him under section 68 of the Act to prove his case beyond doubt by producing so called investors

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

131 of the Act were issued to 20 such persons but none responded. The A.O. held that having confronted with the evidence indicating sham transaction, the burden of proof shifted back on the assessee and heavy onus was cast on him under section 68 of the Act to prove his case beyond doubt by producing so called investors

M/S ARYANS EDUCATIONAL AND CHARITABLE TRUST,MOHALI vs. DCIT, C-1, (E), CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Dr Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 821/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 M/S Aryans Educational & Vs. The Dcit, Circle-1 Charitable Trust, बनाम (Exemptions), # 2129, Phase-10, Chandigarh Mohali "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aabta7550L

1,63,73,648/- made by the Assessing Officer applying the provisions of section 115BBC and Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') and that the ld. CIT(A) has failed to consider the evidence placed before him in the form of affidavits showing that donations received are not anonymous and as such

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

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

131 as per page 125 and being a debateable issue, the order of the Ld. PCIT may be set-aside. 6. We have heard the rival contention and perused the material available on the record. It is noted that the AO while passing the assessment order has made an addition towards unexplained expenditure of salary under section

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 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

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

INCOME TAX OFFICER, NEW LIBRA KOTHI, RAILWAY ROAD, SIRHIND vs. BHAGWAN DASS, AMLOH ROAD, MANDI GOBINDGARH

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

68 read with section 115BBE, the Assessing Officer treated the\noutstanding balances as unexplained cash credits.\n3.2 Further, the Assessing Officer observed from the Profit & Loss Account that the\nassessee had claimed GST expenses pertaining to FY 2018-19 amounting to Rs.\n12,38,488/- although the same related to an earlier assessment year. The assessee\nadmitted that this

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, LUDHIANA , LUDHIANA vs. AB ALCOBEV PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, appeals of Revenue are dismissed, Cross\nObjections of the assessee for

131 of the\nIncome-tax Act, 1961, or a notice under sub-section (4) of Section\n22 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 or under sub-section (1) of\nSection 142 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is issued to Ajay Kumar\nBindal, Smt. Geeta Bindal AB Alcobev Pvt. Ltd., Homeland\nBuildwell Pvt. Ltd. (name

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, LUDHIANA vs. AB ALCOBEV PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, appeals of Revenue are dismissed, Cross\nObjections of the assessee for

131 of the\nIncome-tax Act, 1961, or a notice under sub-section (4) of Section\n22 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 or under sub-section (1) of\nSection 142 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is issued to Ajay Kumar\nBindal, Smt. Geeta Bindal AB Alcobev Pvt. Ltd., Homeland\nBuildwell Pvt. Ltd. (name

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, LUDHIANA vs. AB ALCOBEV PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, appeals of Revenue are dismissed, Cross\nObjections of the assessee for

131 of the\nIncome-tax Act, 1961, or a notice under sub-section (4) of Section\n22 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 or under sub-section (1) of\nSection 142 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is issued to Ajay Kumar\nBindal, Smt. Geeta Bindal AB Alcobev Pvt. Ltd., Homeland\nBuildwell Pvt. Ltd. (name

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA vs. AB ALCOBEV PRIVATE LIMITED , DELHI

In the result, appeals of Revenue are dismissed, Cross\nObjections of the assessee for

131 of the\nIncome-tax Act, 1961, or a notice under sub-section (4) of Section\n22 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 or under sub-section (1) of\nSection 142 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is issued to Ajay Kumar\nBindal, Smt. Geeta Bindal AB Alcobev Pvt. Ltd., Homeland\nBuildwell Pvt. Ltd. (name

M/S TJR PROPERTIES PVT. LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. ACIT, CC-2, CHANDIGARH

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

1)(b) read with Section 143(3) of the Act, passed by the same AO as who had assessed the case of the assessee company for the same assessment year. The AO accepted the credit worthiness of Shri Sahil Singla and Smt. Kiran Singla in their respective assessment proceedings, while he made addition of the same in the case

ACIT, CC-2, CHANDIGARH vs. M/S TJR PROPERTIES PVT. LTD., CHANDIGARH

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

1)(b) read with Section 143(3) of the Act, passed by the same AO as who had assessed the case of the assessee company for the same assessment year. The AO accepted the credit worthiness of Shri Sahil Singla and Smt. Kiran Singla in their respective assessment proceedings, while he made addition of the same in the case

M/S HERO CYCLES LTD.,LUDHIANA vs. ACIT, C-V, LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed and the\nappeal of the assessee is allowed

68,771/-) is disallowed and added back to the\ntotal income of the assessee as being the expenditure not wholly and\nexclusively for the purposes of business and is added back to the total\nincome of the assessee.\"\n13. Being aggrieved the assessee carried the matter to the Ld. CIT(A)\nand furnished the written submissions dt. 14.12.2017 which