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)

68, section 69, section 69A, section 69B, section 69C or section 69D and . ii) The assesse offers no explanation about the nature and source thereof or the explanation offered by him is not, in the opinion of assessing officer satisfactory. In this case survey was carried out at the business premises of the assessee

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

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

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

142(1) were issued. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO also issued a Show Cause Notice dated 04.02.2021 stating that as per the Surrender Letter, the Assessee has made a surrender for a sum of Rs. 1,00,00,000 on account of difference in stock and the Assessee was also asked to explain the reasons for excess

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

142(1) of the Act alongwith detail questionnaire dt. 23/01/2021 was also issued to the assessee. In response to the above captioned notice, the assessee has filed with the Income Tax Authorities detailed reply from time to time, wherein the assessee has duly stated that his nature of business is manufacturing PVC pipes and hence, it is evident that other

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)

68,63,786/- under Section 69A/69C of the Act. 5. In the Ld. AO order No. ITBA/AST/S/144/2019-20/1022600929(1)dt. 18/12/2019 following is observed and recorded: “Return of income was e-filed by the assessee on 28.06.2017 declaring business income at Rs. 62,860/- which was processed u/s 143(1) of the IT. Act, 1961. The case was selected

WINSOME TEXTILE INDUSTRIES LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1), CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

142 or section 148; or to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment for that purpose. 31. The aforementioned requirements of law must be held to be conditions precedent for invoking the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer to reopen the assessment under section 147 of the Act in cases which are covered

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

68 burden, coupled with\ntell-tale features of the trades. Second, the AO issued multiple detailed\nquestionnaires under section 142

M/S HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL & INFRASTRUCTURE DEV. CORP. LTD.,PANCHKULA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE, PANCHKULA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is, therefore, allowed in above terms

Bench: The Ld.Cit(A) On Various Grounds, Including Challenging The Reference Made By The Ao To Special Audit. The Ld.Cit(A)

142(2A) OF THE I t Act 1961 for the assessment for the A.Y. 2014-15 – reg. – ******* Please refer to the assessment proceedings for the A.Y. 2014-15 pending in this office. 2. In this regard, during the course of assessment proceedings you were asked to provide the information as per noting sheet entry dated 16.12.2016 vide your reply dated

M/S JASHAN FINLEASE LTD.,KHANNA vs. DCIT, CC-1, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

142(1) were issued alongwith questionnaire. 4. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO issued a specific query relating to income surrendered during the course of survey. It was stated by the AO that during the course of survey, the assessee had surrendered a sum of Rs. 75,00,000/- in terms of surrender letter dt. 06/03/2019 on account

INCOME TAX OFICER, BC BAZAR vs. THE KESRI UNION FARMERS SERVICE CO-OP SOCIETY LTD, AMBALA

In the result appeal of Department / Revenue is dismissed

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

section 142 (1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 alongwith Annexure were issued on 19/07/2019, 03/09/2019 and 05/10/2019. 9. In response to above notices, society filed replies online through ITBA from time to time. The assessee society filed its Income Tax Return on 18.12.2019 declaring NIL income. It is also on record that further notice

SH. ABHISHEK BANSAL,BARNALA vs. PR. CIT, PATIALA

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Dr Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 131/Chd/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Abhishek Bansal, Vs. Pr. Commissioner बनाम Prop. M/S Lifeline Multi Income Tax, Specialilty Hospitality, 25 Acre Patiala Extn., Near Fountain Chowk, Barnala, Punjab "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Acgpb5740E अपीलाथ" ./ Appellant ""यथ" / Respondent ( Hybrid Mode ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Sh. Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Rohit Sharma, Cit Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 09.05.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 13.06.2024 आदेश/Order Per Dr. Krinwant Sahay, A.M.:

142(1) of the Act was issued upon 131-Chd-2023 – Shri Abhishek Bansal, Barnala 7 the assessee. In the said notice, various details including the details w.r.t. business activities of the assessee were asked by the Assessing Officer. In response to the said notice, the assessee filed a detailed reply dated 12.01.2019 wherein, the point wise reply

DCIT, C-1, LUDHIANA vs. M/S GOLD STAR AMCO STEELS PVT. LTD., LUDHIANA

In the results, the book results as duly audited need to be accepted and the addition so made is hereby directed to be deleted

Bench: 30Th Of September 2013 And, As Such, Framing Of Assessment By The Assessing Officer Without Observing Mandatory

142(1) were issued and necessary information were called for. Thereafter, a show cause under section 144 was issued due to non compliance of statutory notices and absence of replies to the questionnaire issued from time to time and thereafter, the AO invoked his jurisdiction under section 144 and assessment was completed under section 144 dt. 09/03/2015

M/S GOLD STAR AMCO STEELS PVT. LTD.,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, C-1, LUDHIANA

In the results, the book results as duly audited need to be accepted and the addition so made is hereby directed to be deleted

Bench: 30Th Of September 2013 And, As Such, Framing Of Assessment By The Assessing Officer Without Observing Mandatory

142(1) were issued and necessary information were called for. Thereafter, a show cause under section 144 was issued due to non compliance of statutory notices and absence of replies to the questionnaire issued from time to time and thereafter, the AO invoked his jurisdiction under section 144 and assessment was completed under section 144 dt. 09/03/2015

RAV SHARAN SINGH,PATIALA vs. ACIT, C.C., PATIALA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

142(1) were issued and thereafter, taking into consideration the response filed by the assessee to the specific show cause but not finding the same acceptable, the AO invoked the provisions of Section 69 in respect of additional income so surrendered by the assessee amounting to Rs. 25,02,000/-. 3. Being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter

SH. NARESH CHAUHAN,SHIMLA vs. ACIT, CC-II, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the addition so made is hereby directed to be deleted and the ground of appeal is allowed

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

142(1) calling for the necessary information and documentation and addition of Rs. 75,57,804/- originally made under section 69C was reiterated. Further addition of Rs. 1,72,986/- on account of unexplained expenditure as against original addition of Rs. 32,02,047/- was reiterated. Further, addition of Rs. 56,674/- under section 68

SH. NARESH CHAUHAN,SHIMLA vs. DCIT, CC-II, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the addition so made is hereby directed to be deleted and the ground of appeal is allowed

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

142(1) calling for the necessary information and documentation and addition of Rs. 75,57,804/- originally made under section 69C was reiterated. Further addition of Rs. 1,72,986/- on account of unexplained expenditure as against original addition of Rs. 32,02,047/- was reiterated. Further, addition of Rs. 56,674/- under section 68

ITO, W-1(3), CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. RENU ANAND, CHANDIGARH

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

section 143(2) was issued on 02/09/2014 by the Dy. CIT Circle1(1) Chandigarh 2 and served upon the assessee on 08/09/2014. Thereafter the case record was transferred to ITO Ward1(3) which was received on 26/05/2015. That further proceedings were taken up by issuing notice u/s 142(1) alongwith questionnaire on 11/06/2015 followed by on 30/07/2015. That

SH. SURENDER KUMAR,KAITHAL vs. PR. C.I.T., ROHTAK

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

142(1) of the Act had specifically raised query about the taxability of amount of Rs.93 lacs surrendered during the survey action and a specific reference has been made to the applicability of Section 115BBE of the Act. The ld. counsel for the assessee in this respect has referred to Paper Book page 23-24, which is copy