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)

194 Taxman 43 (Delhi) has held as under: “Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 – Cash Credits – Assessment

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)

194 Taxman 43 (Delhi) has held as under: “Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 – Cash Credits – Assessment

SWARN GANGA JEWELLERS,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 4(1) NOW DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: This Tribunal Being Aggrieved By An Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/1045180258(1) For A.Y. 2017-18 Dt. 05/09/2022 Which Is Hereinafter Referred To As The “Impugned Order”. The Impugned Order Is Passed By Cit(A) In Terms Of Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. Factual Matrix 2. That Survey U/S 133A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Was Conducted On The Business Premises Of The Assessee On 06/09/2016. The Assessee Surrendered A Sum Of Rs. 50,00,000/- During The Survey & Paid Tax Thereon. The Return Of Income Was Filed On 01/11/2017 Declaring A Total Income Of Rs. 89,48,260/-. Thereafter The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny Under Compulsory Scrutiny Guidelines & Notice Under Section 143(2) Of The Act Was Issued On 11/09/2018. The Assessment Was Finalised Vide Order Dt. 23/12/2019 Whereby Addition Of Rs. 95,70,882/- Was Made U/S 68 R.W..S 115Bbe Of The Act.

section 68 r.w.s. 115BBE without pointing out any lacuna in books of account of the assessee. The only lacuna they have pointed out is cash deposit. Be that as it may cash deposit are regularly deposited by the assessee in their Firm’s bank account with HDFC Bank. Extracts of statement of account has been produced; coupled with other

SECL INDUSTRIES LIMITED,BATHINDA vs. DCIT, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Section 68 applies equally to share application money received by the assessee and the burden is on the assessee to prove the nature and source thereof to the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer regarding the three ingredients i.e. proof regarding identity of the share applicants, their creditworthiness to purchase the shares and the genuineness of the transaction

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

section 263 of the Income Tax Act 1961,extracted by the PCIT identified five heads: (i) Provision for development expenses of Rs.100 crore; ii) Oxford Street Project, Zirakpur – investment of Rs.26.50 crore and TDS u/s 194-IA; (iii) Advances from customers Rs.64,285.60 lakh and Advance against property Rs.7,607.14 lakh; (iv) Rs.921.39 lakh “previous year taxes” appearing

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)

Section 68 of the Act. 3.7 In response to show cause notice, the assessee submitted as under:  That he has purchased 850 equity shares of M/s Maple Goods (P) Ltd. in F.Y. 2010-11 through share broker S.K. Khemka.  That M/s Maple Goods (P) Ltd. was later on amalgamated with M/s Access Global Ltd. in November

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)

Section 68 of the Act. 4.7 In response to show cause notice, the assessee submitted as under:  That he has purchased 1700 equity shares of M/s Maple Goods (P) Ltd. in F.Y. 2010-11 through share broker S.K. Khemka.  That M/s Maple Goods (P) Ltd. was later on amalgamated with M/s Access Global Ltd. in November

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)

Section 68 of the Act. 4.7 In response to show cause notice, the assessee submitted as under:  That he has purchased 1700 equity shares of M/s Maple Goods (P) Ltd. in F.Y. 2010-11 through share broker S.K. Khemka.  That M/s Maple Goods (P) Ltd. was later on amalgamated with M/s Access Global Ltd. in November

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)

Section 68 of the Act. 4.7 In response to show cause notice, the assessee submitted as under:  That he has purchased 1700 equity shares of M/s Maple Goods (P) Ltd. in F.Y. 2010-11 through share broker S.K. Khemka.  That M/s Maple Goods (P) Ltd. was later on amalgamated with M/s Access Global Ltd. in November

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)

Section 68 of the Act. 4.7 In response to show cause notice, the assessee submitted as under:  That he has purchased 1700 equity shares of M/s Maple Goods (P) Ltd. in F.Y. 2010-11 through share broker S.K. Khemka.  That M/s Maple Goods (P) Ltd. was later on amalgamated with M/s Access Global Ltd. in November

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 ITD 65 CHD, and viii) Rupesh Chiman Lal V ITO, order dated 30.01.2017 in ITA Nos. 6179-6182/Mum/2016 13.5 Then, it is well settled that the assessee cannot be expected to be after the person with whom he has entered in the business transactions and the assessee's onus is to establish the identity of the party

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 ITD 65 CHD, and viii) Rupesh Chiman Lal V ITO, order dated 30.01.2017 in ITA Nos. 6179-6182/Mum/2016 13.5 Then, it is well settled that the assessee cannot be expected to be after the person with whom he has entered in the business transactions and the assessee's onus is to establish the identity of the party

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 ITD 65 CHD, and viii) Rupesh Chiman Lal V ITO, order dated 30.01.2017 in ITA Nos. 6179-6182/Mum/2016 13.5 Then, it is well settled that the assessee cannot be expected to be after the person with whom he has entered in the business transactions and the assessee's onus is to establish the identity of the party

SBS BIOTECH UNIT II,SIRMOUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

68,78,900/- as originally declared and thereafter notice under section 143(2) and 142(1) alongwith detailed questionnaire were issued and after taking into consideration the submissions so filed by the assessee and after carrying out necessary examination/verification, the assessment proceedings were completed under section 147 r.w.s 144B vide order dt. 30/03/2022 without drawing any adverse inference

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

Section 68 of the Act would 8 186-Chd-2024 & SA-12-Chd-2024 – Radiant Cement Company Pvt. Ltd., Sirmour, H.P. reveal that it would not apply to a situation where account books have not (sic) been rejected." IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITA No. 194

THE MANAGER, ALLAHABAD BANK,SHIMLA vs. ITO, TDS, SHIMLA

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

194 A of the Income Tax Act,1961 was that no proof had been placed on record to prove that fact that the appellant had not placed on record any material to show that the deductee Himachal Pradesh Power Corporation Ltd was a 100% govt owned company though on their letter head it was mentioned that

ACIT, CIRCLE, PANCHKULA vs. M/S HARYANA STATE ELECTRONICS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD., CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the department is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.K.Saini & Shri Sanjay Garg

68,184/- (3,75,000 + 93,184) is confirmed. The ground of appeal is partly allowed.” 7. Now both the parties are in appeal. The assessee is in ITA Nos.740 & 863/CHD/2018 A.Y. 2014-15 Page 4 of 10 appeal against the sustenance of the expenses while the Department is in appeal against the relief allowed to the assessee

M/S HARYANA STATE ELECTRONICS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CIRCLE, PANCHKULA

In the result, the appeal of the department is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.K.Saini & Shri Sanjay Garg

68,184/- (3,75,000 + 93,184) is confirmed. The ground of appeal is partly allowed.” 7. Now both the parties are in appeal. The assessee is in ITA Nos.740 & 863/CHD/2018 A.Y. 2014-15 Page 4 of 10 appeal against the sustenance of the expenses while the Department is in appeal against the relief allowed to the assessee

M/S GANESH DASS HUF,SIRSA vs. PCIT, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

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

section 2 of section 56, clause(iv) in section 57 and clause (b) in Section 145A w.e.f. 01.04.2010. From the assessment year 2010-11 onwards, the amount of compensation or enhanced compensation is taxable as "income from other sources" after allowing deduction of a sum equal to 50% of such income in the year of receipt