JANTA LAND PROMOTERS PVT LTD,MOHALI vs. THE PRINICIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,CHANDIGARH-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

68. For the sake of completeness, we present the background and basis for this deduction or appropriation from Reserves and Surplus: 5. The Ld. AR had submitted that the Assessing Officer in the original assessment had recorded the scrutiny heads as advances from customers, ICDS compliance & adjustments, verification of opening/closing stock and bonus/commission, and ultimately made only one addition

DCIT,CIRCLE-I, LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA vs. ADINATH TEXTILES LIMITED, LUDHIANA

In the result both the appeal filed by the Revenue and Cross objection filed by the Assessee are dismissed

Bench: the appeal is finally heard or disposed off.

section 68 the Income Tax Act, 1961amounting to R- 2,20,32,738/-. 4. That Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi erred on facts and law, in deleting the addition u/s 69Cof the Income Tax As on account of explained expenditure amounting toRs.3,83,50,000/- 5. That the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi erred on facts

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3), LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA vs. SHREE BALAJI PROCESSORS, LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed whereas, the 29

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Dr Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 499/Chd/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 The Ito, Vs. Shree Balaji Processors, बनाम Ward-1(3), Tajpur Road, Ludhiana Opp. Central Jail, Ludhiana 141010 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Actfs8428B अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent & C.O. No. 09/Chd/2024 ( In आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 499/Chd/2023) "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Shree Balaji Processors, Vs. The Ito, बनाम Tajpur Road, Ward-1(3), Opp. Central Jail, Ludhiana Ludhiana 141010 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Actfs8428B अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent ( Physical Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Smt. Kusum Bansal, Cit Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 26.06.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20.08.2024

68 in respect of amount deposited in bank account, in view of fact that said amount represented sale consideration of goods in support of which assessee had produced statement of bank account, copies of bills issued to purchasers as also books of account showing entries of deposits made in bank, impugned revision at order was to be set aside

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

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

68 of the Act. This position stands settled vide inter-alia, the following decisions : i) ITA No. 325/2008 (Del) CIT vs. Ritu Anurag Agarwal "As there was no case for disallowance for corresponding purchases, no addition could be made under Section 68 in as much as it is not in dispute that the creditors outstanding related to purchases

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

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

68 of the Act. This position stands settled vide inter-alia, the following decisions : i) ITA No. 325/2008 (Del) CIT vs. Ritu Anurag Agarwal "As there was no case for disallowance for corresponding purchases, no addition could be made under Section 68 in as much as it is not in dispute that the creditors outstanding related to purchases

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

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

68 of the Act. This position stands settled vide inter-alia, the following decisions : i) ITA No. 325/2008 (Del) CIT vs. Ritu Anurag Agarwal "As there was no case for disallowance for corresponding purchases, no addition could be made under Section 68 in as much as it is not in dispute that the creditors outstanding related to purchases

SH. PARSHOTAM LAL,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-1, LUDHIANA

In the result, we upheld the addition totaling to Rs 18,31,800/- towards cash seized u/s 69A in A

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

68 to 69D of the Act, it must be appreciated that all of these are deeming provisions, wherein the burden of abuse of provisions is on the department. Incase such burden of proof is not discharged by the department, then such an addition cannot be made in this regard in case of the assessee. 3.&4. On 23 December

SH. PARSHOTAM LAL,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-1, LUDHIANA

In the result, we upheld the addition totaling to Rs 18,31,800/- towards cash seized u/s 69A in A

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

68 to 69D of the Act, it must be appreciated that all of these are deeming provisions, wherein the burden of abuse of provisions is on the department. Incase such burden of proof is not discharged by the department, then such an addition cannot be made in this regard in case of the assessee. 3.&4. On 23 December

SH. PARSHOTAM LAL,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-1, LUDHIANA

In the result, we upheld the addition totaling to Rs 18,31,800/- towards cash seized u/s 69A in A

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

68 to 69D of the Act, it must be appreciated that all of these are deeming provisions, wherein the burden of abuse of provisions is on the department. Incase such burden of proof is not discharged by the department, then such an addition cannot be made in this regard in case of the assessee. 3.&4. On 23 December

SH. PARSHOTAM LAL,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-1, LUDHIANA

In the result, we upheld the addition totaling to Rs 18,31,800/- towards cash seized u/s 69A in A

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

68 to 69D of the Act, it must be appreciated that all of these are deeming provisions, wherein the burden of abuse of provisions is on the department. Incase such burden of proof is not discharged by the department, then such an addition cannot be made in this regard in case of the assessee. 3.&4. On 23 December

SH. PARSHOTAM LAL,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-1, LUDHIANA

In the result, we upheld the addition totaling to Rs 18,31,800/- towards cash seized u/s 69A in A

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

68 to 69D of the Act, it must be appreciated that all of these are deeming provisions, wherein the burden of abuse of provisions is on the department. Incase such burden of proof is not discharged by the department, then such an addition cannot be made in this regard in case of the assessee. 3.&4. On 23 December

SH. PARSHOTAM LAL,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-1, LUDHIANA

In the result, we upheld the addition totaling to Rs 18,31,800/- towards cash seized u/s 69A in A

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

68 to 69D of the Act, it must be appreciated that all of these are deeming provisions, wherein the burden of abuse of provisions is on the department. Incase such burden of proof is not discharged by the department, then such an addition cannot be made in this regard in case of the assessee. 3.&4. On 23 December

SH. PARSHOTAM LAL,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-1, LUDHIANA

In the result, we upheld the addition totaling to Rs 18,31,800/- towards cash seized u/s 69A in A

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

68 to 69D of the Act, it must be appreciated that all of these are deeming provisions, wherein the burden of abuse of provisions is on the department. Incase such burden of proof is not discharged by the department, then such an addition cannot be made in this regard in case of the assessee. 3.&4. On 23 December

RAVI MEHRA, 1121, SECTOR 10, PANCHKULA 134109, HARYANA,HARYANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3, PANCHKULA, HARYANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

68 of the Act. 6. It was submitted that the assessee, aggrieved with the order of Ld. AO, filed an appeal before the Worthy CIT(A), NFAC and during the course of the Appellate proceedings also, the assessee duly explained the nature of transaction and again filed the confirmation received from both the parties. However, the Worthy

DCIT, PATIALA vs. M/S SANGRUR AGRO LTD., SANGRUR

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptaassessment Yeas : 2008-09

167 CTR (SC) 287 has held that even if the subscribers to be increased Share Capital of assessee company were in genuine, the amount could not be regarded as undisclosed income of the assessee company. In view of the above facts, it is abundantly clear that we have discharge our preliminary onus regarding capacity, genuineness and identify of the shareholders

DCIT, PATIALA vs. M/S SANGRUR INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION LTD., SANGRUR

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptaassessment Yeas : 2008-09

167 CTR (SC) 287 has held that even if the subscribers to be increased Share Capital of assessee company were in genuine, the amount could not be regarded as undisclosed income of the assessee company. In view of the above facts, it is abundantly clear that we have discharge our preliminary onus regarding capacity, genuineness and identify of the shareholders

BANSAL RICE TRADERS,SANGRUR vs. ITO-WARD, SANGRUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

167 ITR 471 (SC) 5.4 The Ld.CIT(A) after considering the submissions of the assessee and the remand report of the A.O. observed that the A.O. issued the notice under section 148 of the Act for filing the return of income but no return of income was filed, therefore, the A.O. was left no option but to complete

SANT KUMAR SURI,NURPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 263, stating that the assessment order\nwas erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue. The Pr. CIT set aside\nthe assessment order, directing the Assessing Officer (AO) to re-examine the\nfollowing issues i.e; Unexplained increase in capital amounting to Rs.\n58,86,167/- and Mismatch in opening stock amounting to Rs.1,40,52,866/-.\n4.\nAgainst