DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. PARAMJIT SINGH, MOHALI

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

14. In view of this, though, we are of the view that the legal plea taken by the assessee that the provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act are not attracted because the relevant provisions of section 271AAA were applicable, is not tenable, yet we are of the view that otherwise, the provisions of section

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. JASWANT KAUR, MOHALI

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

14. In view of this, though, we are of the view that the legal plea taken by the assessee that the provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act are not attracted because the relevant provisions of section 271AAA were applicable, is not tenable, yet we are of the view that otherwise, the provisions of section

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. MANJIT KAUR, CHANDIGARH

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

14. In view of this, though, we are of the view that the legal plea taken by the assessee that the provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act are not attracted because the relevant provisions of section 271AAA were applicable, is not tenable, yet we are of the view that otherwise, the provisions of section

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. JASWANT KAUR, MOHALI

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

14. In view of this, though, we are of the view that the legal plea taken by the assessee that the provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act are not attracted because the relevant provisions of section 271AAA were applicable, is not tenable, yet we are of the view that otherwise, the provisions of section

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. KULWANT SINGH, MOHALI

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

14. In view of this, though, we are of the view that the legal plea taken by the assessee that the provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act are not attracted because the relevant provisions of section 271AAA were applicable, is not tenable, yet we are of the view that otherwise, the provisions of section

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. KULWANT SINGH, MOHALI

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

14. In view of this, though, we are of the view that the legal plea taken by the assessee that the provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act are not attracted because the relevant provisions of section 271AAA were applicable, is not tenable, yet we are of the view that otherwise, the provisions of section

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. PARAMJIT SINGH, MOHALI

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

14. In view of this, though, we are of the view that the legal plea taken by the assessee that the provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act are not attracted because the relevant provisions of section 271AAA were applicable, is not tenable, yet we are of the view that otherwise, the provisions of section

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.

section 68 of the Act can be considered for set-off against losses under various heads of income. After examining the relevant provisions in detail, Co- ordinate Bench has clearly outlined that for income to be considered even from other sources, the sources have to be established. The relevant observations read as follows: "14

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)

14. We have heard the rival contentions and purused the material available on record. On perusal of the provisions of Section 115BBE of the Act, it provides that where the total income of the assessee includes any income referred to in sections 68

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

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

sections 70 to 80 of the Act, which allows set off of business losses against current year business losses subject to fulfillment of certain conditions. There is no dispute about the above position of law. 14. Further the Act also provides for treating certain credits, investments, expenses from undisclosed sources, as deemed incomes u/s 68

TARLOCHAN SINGH ,BHAWANIGARH vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, PATIALA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

14,00,000/- on account of unexplained investment as deemed income u/s 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. SECTION 68

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

Section 14 of the Act, particularly "income from other sources", would not apply and such income would necessarily fall u/s 68

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

AARTI SINGAL,NEW DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the above appeals are allowed

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 939/Chd/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Shri Aniket Singal बनाम The DCIT Central Circle-1 Chandigarh 4, Amritashergil Marg, New Delhi- 110003 स्थायी लेखा सं./ PAN NO: CZCPS6126E अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 1145/Chd/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Smt. Aarti Singal बनाम The DCIT Central Circle-1 Chandigarh 53, Jor Bagh, New Delhi-110003 स

68 burden, coupled with 9 tell-tale features of the trades. Second, the AO issued multiple detailed questionnaires under section 142(1) and afforded hearings; the appellant had full opportunity to file rebuttal material, seek cross-examination with reasons, and demonstrate genuineness through independent evidence She did not. Even assuming some deficiency in confrontation, appellate proceedings have provided

ANIKET SINGAL,NEW DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the above appeals are allowed

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 939/Chd/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Shri Aniket Singal बनाम The DCIT 4, Amritashergil Marg, New Delhi- 110003 Central Circle-1 Chandigarh स्थायी लेखा सं./ PAN NO: CZCPS6126E अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 1145/Chd/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Smt. Aarti Singal बनाम The DCIT 53, Jor Bagh, New Delhi-110003 Central Circle-1 Chandigarh स

68 burden, coupled with 9 tell-tale features of the trades. Second, the AO issued multiple detailed questionnaires under section 142(1) and afforded hearings; the appellant had full opportunity to file rebuttal material, seek cross-examination with reasons, and demonstrate genuineness through independent evidence She did not. Even assuming some deficiency in confrontation, appellate proceedings have provided

BANUR BROTHER ,PATIALA vs. ITO-WARD-1, AMBALA

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed as and by way of remand to Ld

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

14,682.03/- on the total sales made during the year. Further, Appellant had provided all the documents during the submission before the Ld. CIT(A), but the same were not recognized. Therefore, Ld. CIT(A) had erred in upholding the addition under section 69A/69C of the Act. 2.2.13 Going through the bank statement of the Appellant, the cash deposited

RAJIV GOYAL, PATIALA,PATIALA, PUNJAB vs. JAO ITO WARD-3, PATIALA, PATIALA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: the CIT(A) have not been considered properly.

68 and invoked the provisions of section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act. 3.1 It was the contention of the assessee before the Assessing Officer that he has furnished the confirmations of the lenders, alongwith their PAN Numbers, copy of the relevant Bank statement of the lender and copy of their ITRs and, thus, according to the assessee

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)

14-12-2024 in the matter of AY: 2019-20 & 2022-23 an assessment framed by Ld. Assessing Officer [AO] u/s 147 of the Act on 30-03-2024. The grounds of appeal read as under: - 1. Whether upon facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified to delete the addition