DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. PARAMJIT SINGH, MOHALI

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

153 a return of his income which he is required to furnish under section 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

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. KULWANT SINGH, MOHALI

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

153 a return of his income which he is required to furnish under section 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

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. MANJIT KAUR, CHANDIGARH

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

153 a return of his income which he is required to furnish under section 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

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. KULWANT SINGH, MOHALI

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

153 a return of his income which he is required to furnish under section 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

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. JASWANT KAUR, MOHALI

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

153 a return of his income which he is required to furnish under section 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

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

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

153 and decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High court in case of Fakir Mohmed Haji Hasan Vs. CIT 120 taxman 11. 5. In his rejoinder, the Ld. AR submitted that the Ld. CIT, DR had argued that once the Assessing Officer having mentioned in the order, while making the addition u/s 69C as per para 3.11 of the Assessing Officer

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)

153(A) dt. 28/09/2016 was issued to the assessee. In response to the notice, the assessee filed his return of income on 31/12/2016 declaring total income of Rs. 40,93,500/- as originally declared under section 139(1) of the Act. 3.2 During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO stated that the assessee has claimed exemption of LTCG

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)

153(A) dt. 28/09/2016 was issued to the assessee. In response to the notice, the assessee filed his return of income on 28/01/2017 declaring total income of Rs. 6,77,053/- as originally declared under section 139(1) of the Act. 4.2 During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO stated that the assessee has claimed exemption of LTCG

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)

153(A) dt. 28/09/2016 was issued to the assessee. In response to the notice, the assessee filed his return of income on 28/01/2017 declaring total income of Rs. 6,77,053/- as originally declared under section 139(1) of the Act. 4.2 During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO stated that the assessee has claimed exemption of LTCG

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)

153(A) dt. 28/09/2016 was issued to the assessee. In response to the notice, the assessee filed his return of income on 28/01/2017 declaring total income of Rs. 6,77,053/- as originally declared under section 139(1) of the Act. 4.2 During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO stated that the assessee has claimed exemption of LTCG

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)

153(A) dt. 28/09/2016 was issued to the assessee. In response to the notice, the assessee filed his return of income on 28/01/2017 declaring total income of Rs. 6,77,053/- as originally declared under section 139(1) of the Act. 4.2 During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO stated that the assessee has claimed exemption of LTCG

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.

68 has to be assessed under section 56. In the case before us, source of unexplained cash credits is not known and hence they cannot be linked to any known source/head of income including income from other sources. In order to constitute 'income from 'other sources', the source, namely, the "other sources", has to be identified. Income from unexplained

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, LUDHIANA vs. AB ALCOBEV PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, appeals of Revenue are dismissed, Cross\nObjections of the assessee for

section 153C in the case of the assessee after duly\nrecording satisfaction that the seized documents belonged to the assessee and represented its\nundisclosed 11 income. In the absence of such compliance, the assessment so framed is without\njurisdiction and liable to be quashed.\n6. The Assessing Officer has relied upon various documents and digital data seized during\nthe

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, LUDHIANA , LUDHIANA vs. AB ALCOBEV PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, appeals of Revenue are dismissed, Cross\nObjections of the assessee for

section 153C in the case of the assessee after duly\nrecording satisfaction that the seized documents belonged to the assessee and represented its\nundisclosed 11 income. In the absence of such compliance, the assessment so framed is without\njurisdiction and liable to be quashed.\n6. The Assessing Officer has relied upon various documents and digital data seized during\nthe

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA vs. AB ALCOBEV PRIVATE LIMITED , DELHI

In the result, appeals of Revenue are dismissed, Cross\nObjections of the assessee for

section 153C in the case of the assessee after duly\nrecording satisfaction that the seized documents belonged to the assessee and represented its\nundisclosed 11 income. In the absence of such compliance, the assessment so framed is without\njurisdiction and liable to be quashed.\n6. The Assessing Officer has relied upon various documents and digital data seized during\nthe

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, LUDHIANA vs. AB ALCOBEV PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, appeals of Revenue are dismissed, Cross\nObjections of the assessee for

section 153C in the case of the assessee after duly\nrecording satisfaction that the seized documents belonged to the assessee and represented its\nundisclosed 11 income. In the absence of such compliance, the assessment so framed is without\njurisdiction and liable to be quashed.\n6. The Assessing Officer has relied upon various documents and digital data seized during\nthe

AMICO TEXTILES,SOLAN vs. DCIT CC-1, CHANDIGARTH

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.430/Chandi/2022 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) M/S Amico Textiles Dcit Village Bir Plassi, Ropar Road, Central Circle-1 बनाम/ Vs. Nalagarh, Solan Chandigarh Himachal Pradesh 176077 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaqfa-9823-K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Neeraj Jain (Ca) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Manav Bansal (Cit) – Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 23-06-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 15-07-2025. आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2013-14 Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Gurgaon [Cit(A)] Dated 31-03-2022 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Ao U/S 147 R.W.S. 153A Of The Act On 17-12- 2018. The Assessee Is Aggrieved By Confirmation Of Addition Of Rs.46.87 Lacs.

68 and framed the assessment. 4. During appellate proceedings, the assessee raised a legal plea that the assessment ought to have been framed u/s 153C as seized document was found from the possession of one of the partners which was used against the assessee to make the impugned addition. However, Ld. CIT(A) noted that the seized material belonged