DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. KULWANT SINGH, MOHALI

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

139 in respect of any assessment year commencing on or after the 1st day of April, 1989, and until the expiry of the period aforesaid, no notice has been issued to him under clause (i) of sub- section (1) of section 142 or section 148 and the Assessing Officer or the Commissioner (Appeals) is satisfied that

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. MANJIT KAUR, CHANDIGARH

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

139 in respect of any assessment year commencing on or after the 1st day of April, 1989, and until the expiry of the period aforesaid, no notice has been issued to him under clause (i) of sub- section (1) of section 142 or section 148 and the Assessing Officer or the Commissioner (Appeals) is satisfied that

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. JASWANT KAUR, MOHALI

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

139 in respect of any assessment year commencing on or after the 1st day of April, 1989, and until the expiry of the period aforesaid, no notice has been issued to him under clause (i) of sub- section (1) of section 142 or section 148 and the Assessing Officer or the Commissioner (Appeals) is satisfied that

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. JASWANT KAUR, MOHALI

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

139 in respect of any assessment year commencing on or after the 1st day of April, 1989, and until the expiry of the period aforesaid, no notice has been issued to him under clause (i) of sub- section (1) of section 142 or section 148 and the Assessing Officer or the Commissioner (Appeals) is satisfied that

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. PARAMJIT SINGH, MOHALI

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

139 in respect of any assessment year commencing on or after the 1st day of April, 1989, and until the expiry of the period aforesaid, no notice has been issued to him under clause (i) of sub- section (1) of section 142 or section 148 and the Assessing Officer or the Commissioner (Appeals) is satisfied that

INCOME TAX OFFICER, PARWANOO vs. DEEPAK KUMAR, NAHAN

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

139 of the Act the income-tax payable shall be 60 per cent on income so referred in said sections. Thus, both the pre- amended and post-amended provisions of s. 115BBE talk about the income referred to in s. 68, s. 69, s. 69A. s 698, s 690 or s 690. The change which has been brought about

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

68, 69, 69A, 69B, 69C or 69D reflected in the return of income furnished under section 139 of the Act. However, in the present case no such income was reflected in the return filed under section 139 of the Act rather the income was declared in the return filed under section 153A of the Act after

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)

139; or (b) determined by the Assessing Officer includes any income referred to in section 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 — (1) the amount of income-tax calculated

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

139; or (b) determined by the Assessing Officer includes any income referred to in section 68, section 69, section 69A, section 69B, section 69C or section 69D, if such income is not covered under clause (a) [3052a][and clause (b)], the income-tax payable shall be the aggregate of— (i) the amount of income

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

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

139; or (b) determined by the Assessing Officer includes any income referred to in section 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

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.

139; or (b) determined by the Assessing Officer includes any income referred to in section 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

SHRI BALRAM KRISHAN,CHANDIGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

68 on account of amount received from Jai Ambe\nPharmaceutical (JAAPL) holding the company as a shell company.\n7. Ground No. 7 – Purchase transactions carried out allegedly outside books

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

68 Rs. 40,05,419/- Rs. 2,40,956/- 6.5% of NET gain (LTCG) u/s 69C towards commission expenses Rs.42,46,375/- TOTAL Addition to the returned income 19. Being aggrieved the assessee carried the matter to the Ld. CIT(A) and challenged the validity of the initiation of proceedings under section 153A of the Act as no incriminating

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

68 Rs. 40,05,419/- Rs. 2,40,956/- 6.5% of NET gain (LTCG) u/s 69C towards commission expenses Rs.42,46,375/- TOTAL Addition to the returned income 19. Being aggrieved the assessee carried the matter to the Ld. CIT(A) and challenged the validity of the initiation of proceedings under section 153A of the Act as no incriminating

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

68 Rs. 40,05,419/- Rs. 2,40,956/- 6.5% of NET gain (LTCG) u/s 69C towards commission expenses Rs.42,46,375/- TOTAL Addition to the returned income 19. Being aggrieved the assessee carried the matter to the Ld. CIT(A) and challenged the validity of the initiation of proceedings under section 153A of the Act as no incriminating

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

68 Rs. 40,05,419/- Rs. 2,40,956/- 6.5% of NET gain (LTCG) u/s 69C towards commission expenses Rs.42,46,375/- TOTAL Addition to the returned income 19. Being aggrieved the assessee carried the matter to the Ld. CIT(A) and challenged the validity of the initiation of proceedings under section 153A of the Act as no incriminating

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

68 Rs. 40,05,419/- Rs. 2,40,956/- 6.5% of NET gain (LTCG) u/s 69C towards commission expenses Rs.42,46,375/- TOTAL Addition to the returned income 19. Being aggrieved the assessee carried the matter to the Ld. CIT(A) and challenged the validity of the initiation of proceedings under section 153A of the Act as no incriminating

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

68 Rs. 40,05,419/- Rs. 2,40,956/- 6.5% of NET gain (LTCG) u/s 69C towards commission expenses Rs.42,46,375/- TOTAL Addition to the returned income 19. Being aggrieved the assessee carried the matter to the Ld. CIT(A) and challenged the validity of the initiation of proceedings under section 153A of the Act as no incriminating