SH. AASHISH ARORA,LUDHIANA vs. ITO, W-3(2), LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

section 68 and Rs. 28,25,138/- on account of deposit in the saving bank account. The A.O. also

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

Bench: S/Shri N.K. Saini, Vice- & Rajpal Yadav, Vice-

138,686,123 678,507,515 1,705,146,806 Aniket Singal A.Y. 2013-14 A.Y. 2014-15 Total Particulars A.Y. 2011- 12 - 466,845,231 1,629,052,628 Total Sale proceeds u/s 68 (on a/c of alleged 1,162,207,39 bogus LTCG) 29,954,940. 103,622,995 7 73,668,055 6.5% of LTCG

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

Bench: S/Shri N.K. Saini, Vice- & Rajpal Yadav, Vice-

138,686,123 678,507,515 1,705,146,806 Aniket Singal A.Y. 2013-14 A.Y. 2014-15 Total Particulars A.Y. 2011- 12 - 466,845,231 1,629,052,628 Total Sale proceeds u/s 68 (on a/c of alleged 1,162,207,39 bogus LTCG) 29,954,940. 103,622,995 7 73,668,055 6.5% of LTCG

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

Bench: S/Shri N.K. Saini, Vice- & Rajpal Yadav, Vice-

138,686,123 678,507,515 1,705,146,806 Aniket Singal A.Y. 2013-14 A.Y. 2014-15 Total Particulars A.Y. 2011- 12 - 466,845,231 1,629,052,628 Total Sale proceeds u/s 68 (on a/c of alleged 1,162,207,39 bogus LTCG) 29,954,940. 103,622,995 7 73,668,055 6.5% of LTCG

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

Bench: S/Shri N.K. Saini, Vice- & Rajpal Yadav, Vice-

138,686,123 678,507,515 1,705,146,806 Aniket Singal A.Y. 2013-14 A.Y. 2014-15 Total Particulars A.Y. 2011- 12 - 466,845,231 1,629,052,628 Total Sale proceeds u/s 68 (on a/c of alleged 1,162,207,39 bogus LTCG) 29,954,940. 103,622,995 7 73,668,055 6.5% of LTCG

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

Bench: S/Shri N.K. Saini, Vice- & Rajpal Yadav, Vice-

138,686,123 678,507,515 1,705,146,806 Aniket Singal A.Y. 2013-14 A.Y. 2014-15 Total Particulars A.Y. 2011- 12 - 466,845,231 1,629,052,628 Total Sale proceeds u/s 68 (on a/c of alleged 1,162,207,39 bogus LTCG) 29,954,940. 103,622,995 7 73,668,055 6.5% of LTCG

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

Bench: S/Shri N.K. Saini, Vice- & Rajpal Yadav, Vice-

138,686,123 678,507,515 1,705,146,806 Aniket Singal A.Y. 2013-14 A.Y. 2014-15 Total Particulars A.Y. 2011- 12 - 466,845,231 1,629,052,628 Total Sale proceeds u/s 68 (on a/c of alleged 1,162,207,39 bogus LTCG) 29,954,940. 103,622,995 7 73,668,055 6.5% of LTCG

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

Bench: S/Shri N.K. Saini, Vice- & Rajpal Yadav, Vice-

138,686,123 678,507,515 1,705,146,806 Aniket Singal A.Y. 2013-14 A.Y. 2014-15 Total Particulars A.Y. 2011- 12 - 466,845,231 1,629,052,628 Total Sale proceeds u/s 68 (on a/c of alleged 1,162,207,39 bogus LTCG) 29,954,940. 103,622,995 7 73,668,055 6.5% of LTCG

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

Bench: S/Shri N.K. Saini, Vice- & Rajpal Yadav, Vice-

138,686,123 678,507,515 1,705,146,806 Aniket Singal A.Y. 2013-14 A.Y. 2014-15 Total Particulars A.Y. 2011- 12 - 466,845,231 1,629,052,628 Total Sale proceeds u/s 68 (on a/c of alleged 1,162,207,39 bogus LTCG) 29,954,940. 103,622,995 7 73,668,055 6.5% of LTCG

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

Bench: S/Shri N.K. Saini, Vice- & Rajpal Yadav, Vice-

138,686,123 678,507,515 1,705,146,806 Aniket Singal A.Y. 2013-14 A.Y. 2014-15 Total Particulars A.Y. 2011- 12 - 466,845,231 1,629,052,628 Total Sale proceeds u/s 68 (on a/c of alleged 1,162,207,39 bogus LTCG) 29,954,940. 103,622,995 7 73,668,055 6.5% of LTCG

M/S K.LALL OVERSEAS,LUDHIANA vs. ACIT,CIRCLE-6, LUDHIANA

The appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

section 68 and it is the primary onus of assessee only to prove the identity, genuineness and creditworthiness.” ITA No. 165 &174-Chd-2020 A.Y. 2012-13 Page 18 of 29 10. Being aggrieved by the above additions confirmed by the CIT(A), the assessee has come in appeal before us. 11. We have considered the rival submissions

ACIT, LUDHIANA vs. M/S K LAL OVERSEAS PVT. LTD., LUDHIANA

The appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

section 68 and it is the primary onus of assessee only to prove the identity, genuineness and creditworthiness.” ITA No. 165 &174-Chd-2020 A.Y. 2012-13 Page 18 of 29 10. Being aggrieved by the above additions confirmed by the CIT(A), the assessee has come in appeal before us. 11. We have considered the rival submissions

AMAN THUKRAL,LUDHIANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(1), LUDHIANA , LUDHIANA

Accordingly, Additional Ground No. 1 is allowed for statistical

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 82. The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition, observing that during the appellate proceedings, the assessee also did not furnish confirmation letters, signed ledger accounts, copies of ITRs and bank statements of the concerned creditors. 83. Before us, the Ld. AR submitted that the addition has been made without properly appreciating

SARAF THE JEWELLERS, CHANDIGARH,CHANDIGARH vs. THE DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CEN-2 CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

Appeal stand dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.1230/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2019-20) Saraf The Jeweller Dcit / Acit (Central)-2 बनाम/ Sco 45, Pocket No.1 C.R. Building Nac Showroom, Manimajra Himalaya Marg, Vs. Chandigarh – 160101 Sector-17E, Chandigarh "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Adafs-2345-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.1592/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2019-20) Dcit / Acit (Central)-2 Saraf The Jeweller बनाम/ C.R. Building Sco 45, Pocket No.1 Himalaya Marg, Nac Showroom, Manimajra Vs. Sector-17E, Chandigarh Chandigarh – 160101 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Adafs-2345-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/Appellant Sh. Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) & Sh. Sahil Ratra (Advocate) – Ld. Ars By : ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Abhishek Pal Garg (Cit) & Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Drs सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12.02.2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 10.03.2026 : आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench 1.1 Aforesaid Cross-Appeals For Assessment Year (Ay) 2019-20Arises Out Of An Order Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3

Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act in respect of digital data on the basis of which, certain uncalled for addition have been made and also at best for the sake of argument, it is stated that only appropriate net profit ratio could be applied on such alleged suppression of receipts, rather than confirming the entire addition of Rs.8

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHANDIGARH vs. SARAF THE JEWELLERS, PUNJAB

Appeal stand dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.1230/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2019-20) Saraf The Jeweller Dcit / Acit (Central)-2 बनाम/ Sco 45, Pocket No.1 C.R. Building Nac Showroom, Manimajra Himalaya Marg, Vs. Chandigarh – 160101 Sector-17E, Chandigarh "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Adafs-2345-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.1592/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2019-20) Dcit / Acit (Central)-2 Saraf The Jeweller बनाम/ C.R. Building Sco 45, Pocket No.1 Himalaya Marg, Nac Showroom, Manimajra Vs. Sector-17E, Chandigarh Chandigarh – 160101 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Adafs-2345-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/Appellant Sh. Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) & Sh. Sahil Ratra (Advocate) – Ld. Ars By : ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Abhishek Pal Garg (Cit) & Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Drs सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12.02.2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 10.03.2026 : आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench 1.1 Aforesaid Cross-Appeals For Assessment Year (Ay) 2019-20Arises Out Of An Order Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3

Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act in respect of digital data on the basis of which, certain uncalled for addition have been made and also at best for the sake of argument, it is stated that only appropriate net profit ratio could be applied on such alleged suppression of receipts, rather than confirming the entire addition of Rs.8

SHER SINGH,PALAMPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, PALAMPUR

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

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

68 and 69A when there are no defects found in the books of accounts.4.2 Assessee reply has been considered but not found acceptable. Facts of the Case laws cited by the assessee is not similar to the instant case. In instant case assessee has submitted comparative figures of sales, cash sales, cash deposits

M/S GLAXO SMITHKLINE ASIA PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. ACIT, C-4(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee and the Revenue, stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

section 40(a)(i) of the Act, with respect to purchase of vaccine amounting to Rs. 19,12,91,000 made from GlaxoSmithKIine Biological S.A. ('GSK, Bio'}, Belgium, allegedly holding that the appellant -as failed to deduct tax at source from such payment. 2.1 That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in allegedly holding that

M/S GLAXO SMITHKLINE ASIA PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. ACIT, C-4(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee and the Revenue, stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

section 40(a)(i) of the Act, with respect to purchase of vaccine amounting to Rs. 19,12,91,000 made from GlaxoSmithKIine Biological S.A. ('GSK, Bio'}, Belgium, allegedly holding that the appellant -as failed to deduct tax at source from such payment. 2.1 That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in allegedly holding that

ACIT, CHANDIGARH vs. M/S GLAXO SMITHKLINE ASIA PVT. LTD., GURGAON

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee and the Revenue, stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

section 40(a)(i) of the Act, with respect to purchase of vaccine amounting to Rs. 19,12,91,000 made from GlaxoSmithKIine Biological S.A. ('GSK, Bio'}, Belgium, allegedly holding that the appellant -as failed to deduct tax at source from such payment. 2.1 That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in allegedly holding that