M/S JAIN AMAR CLOTHING PVT. LTD.,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-III, LUDHIANA

In the result, the ground no

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

68 of the Act. As against the returned income of Rs. 8,85,15,010/-, the assessed income was determined at Rs. 37,11,61,260/- by bringing to tax the whole of the share premium amounting to Rs. 28,26,46,250/-. 4. Being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before

M/S SEL MANUFACTURING CO. LTD.,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-3, LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal is allowed

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

150 taxmann.com 442 (Surat-Trib.), wherein, since the assessment A.Y. 2011-12 8 order was passed in the case of the assessee and demand was raised, but the assessee had already filed order of the NCLT showing the fact that the assessee had been impleaded as a corporate debtor before the NCLT by the financial creditor and the said petition

AARGEE ENTERPRISES,KAITHAL vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ROHTAK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

68 to 69D needs to be satisfied at first instance and only in those cases where the deeming provisions are applicable, the tax rate as specified in Section 115BBE of the Act can be applied. Further if we look at the deeming provisions, it provides that where the assessee has made investments which are not recorded in the books

M/S LUXMI FOODGRAINS PVT. LTD.,KURALI vs. ITO, W-6(4), MOHALI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Tribunal Against Order Of The Ld.Cit(A)-2, Chandigarh Passed For The Asstt.Year 2013-14. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Taken By The Assessee Were Not In Consonance With Rule 8 Of The Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 - They Are Descriptive & Argumentative In Nature. However, The Assessee Has Amended These Grounds Of Appeal & Filed Fresh Grounds Wherein It Has Taken Four Grounds. A Perusal Of These Grounds Would Reveal That Grievance Of The Assessee Revolves Around Single Issue Viz. The Ld.Cit(A)

150/- and in share premium by Rs.77,37,850/-.The Assessing Officer was of the view that fair market value per share has to be calculated under Rule 11UA which comes to Rs.156/- per share, and therefore excessive rate at Rs.444/- per share, total of which comes to Rs.58,23,060/- is required to be treated as income

SH. ASHOK KUMAR OSWAL (DECEASED) THROUGH MRS. MANJU OSWAL (LEGAL HEIR),LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, C-7, LUDHIANA

In the result, appeals of the Assessees are allowed for statistical purposes

section 68 of the Income Tax Act and ignoring the submissions and details filed by the assessee. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in ignoring the facts that the evidence on which reliance had been placed was never confronted which tantamount to denial of natural justice. 4. That the Appellant craves leave for permission to add, amend

SHRI ADISH OSWAL,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, C-7, LUDHIANA

In the result, appeals of the Assessees are allowed for statistical purposes

section 68 of the Income Tax Act and ignoring the submissions and details filed by the assessee. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in ignoring the facts that the evidence on which reliance had been placed was never confronted which tantamount to denial of natural justice. 4. That the Appellant craves leave for permission to add, amend

M/S VIRTUOSO NETSOFT PVT. LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, C-1(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’). 3. Facts of the case in brief are that the assessee filed its return of income on 03/04/2014 declaring total income of Rs. 64,92,640/-, later on, the case was selected for scrutiny. During the course of assessment proceedings, the A.O. noticed that the assessee

M/S DIN DAYAL PURSOTAM LAL,SIRSA vs. PR.CIT, ROHTAK

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

150 (Guj) C1T vs. Sathyanarayan P. Rathi ii) ITA No. 2826/Mum/2013 dated 5.11.2014 Shri Ganpatraj A Sanghavi vs. ACIT iii) 221 Taxman 436 (Guj) CIT vs. Pradeep Shantilal Patel (section 44AF) iv) ITA No. 116/Ahd/2011 dated 30.5.2014 Narpat Singh vs. 1TO v) 355 ITR 290 (Guj) CIT vs. Bholanath Poly Fab (P) Ltd. vi) 152 ITD 874 (Ahd) Dineshbhai

M/S DIN DAYAL PURSOTAM LAL,SIRSA vs. PR.CIT, ROHTAK

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

150 (Guj) C1T vs. Sathyanarayan P. Rathi ii) ITA No. 2826/Mum/2013 dated 5.11.2014 Shri Ganpatraj A Sanghavi vs. ACIT iii) 221 Taxman 436 (Guj) CIT vs. Pradeep Shantilal Patel (section 44AF) iv) ITA No. 116/Ahd/2011 dated 30.5.2014 Narpat Singh vs. 1TO v) 355 ITR 290 (Guj) CIT vs. Bholanath Poly Fab (P) Ltd. vi) 152 ITD 874 (Ahd) Dineshbhai

M/S DIN DAYAL PURSOTAM LAL,SIRSA vs. PR.CIT, ROHTAK

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

150 (Guj) C1T vs. Sathyanarayan P. Rathi ii) ITA No. 2826/Mum/2013 dated 5.11.2014 Shri Ganpatraj A Sanghavi vs. ACIT iii) 221 Taxman 436 (Guj) CIT vs. Pradeep Shantilal Patel (section 44AF) iv) ITA No. 116/Ahd/2011 dated 30.5.2014 Narpat Singh vs. 1TO v) 355 ITR 290 (Guj) CIT vs. Bholanath Poly Fab (P) Ltd. vi) 152 ITD 874 (Ahd) Dineshbhai

SH. SURJIT SINGH,LUDHIANA vs. ITO, W-1(3), LUDHIANA

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

section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’). 5. Facts of the case in brief are that the assessee filed the return of income on 29/03/2014 declaring an income of Rs. 2,11,150

SH. VIBHAV JAIN,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-III, LUDHIANA

In the result, the ground no

Bench: SHRI. SANJAY GARG (Judicial Member), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

68 arbitrarily. These are actual long term capital gains earned by the assessee. h) All the documents in the shape of share certificates issued by Maple Goods Pvt. Ltd. which are part of annexure A containing 1 to 182 pages have been doubted under the words Character of Certificates, inspite of the fact that the AO has not doubted

SH. ASHISH JAIN,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-III, LUDHIANA

In the result, the ground no

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

68 arbitrarily. These are actual long term capital gains earned by the assessee. h) All the documents in the shape of share certificates issued by Maple Goods Pvt. Ltd. which are part of annexure A containing 1 to 182 pages have been doubted under the words Character of Certificates, inspite of the fact that the AO has not doubted

SH. BIPAN JAIN,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-III, LUDHIANA

In the result, the ground no

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

68 arbitrarily. These are actual long term capital gains earned by the assessee. h) All the documents in the shape of share certificates issued by Maple Goods Pvt. Ltd. which are part of annexure A containing 1 to 182 pages have been doubted under the words Character of Certificates, inspite of the fact that the AO has not doubted

SH. ASHISH JAIN,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-III, LUDHIANA

In the result, the ground no

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

68 arbitrarily. These are actual long term capital gains earned by the assessee. h) All the documents in the shape of share certificates issued by Maple Goods Pvt. Ltd. which are part of annexure A containing 1 to 182 pages have been doubted under the words Character of Certificates, inspite of the fact that the AO has not doubted

SH. AKHIL JAIN,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-III, LUDHIANA

In the result, the ground no

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

68 arbitrarily. These are actual long term capital gains earned by the assessee. h) All the documents in the shape of share certificates issued by Maple Goods Pvt. Ltd. which are part of annexure A containing 1 to 182 pages have been doubted under the words Character of Certificates, inspite of the fact that the AO has not doubted

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , LUDHIANA vs. KAPIL ROMANA , BATHINDA

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue as well as Cross Objections of the Assessee are dismissed

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

section 292C? 3. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 40,84,04,290/- made on account of unexplained unsecured loans u/s 68 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961? 4. That the Ld. CIT(A) has ignored the facts that the entry of Dr. Jagjeet Chawla on the said page was cross

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, LUDHIANA vs. KAPIL ROMANA, BATHINDA

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue as well as Cross Objections of the Assessee are dismissed

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

section 292C? 3. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 40,84,04,290/- made on account of unexplained unsecured loans u/s 68 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961? 4. That the Ld. CIT(A) has ignored the facts that the entry of Dr. Jagjeet Chawla on the said page was cross

RADIANT CEMENT COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED,KALA AMB, SIRMOUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, ITO, NAHAN, SIRMOUR

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Dr Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 186/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Radiant Cement Company Private Vs. The Ito, Limited, बनाम Nahan, Kala Amb, Sirmour Sirmour "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aaacr8765J अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent

68 of the Act as it would amount to double taxation of same income. 12. The Assessing Officer in his assessment order has cited the case of ‘CIT Vs Metal Products of India’, 150 ITR 714 (P&H), wherein it is held that ‘the Assessing Officer may gather information in any manner he likes, behind the back of the assessee