DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. KULWANT SINGH, MOHALI

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

200 {Madras} In the above referred case, during the course of search conducted under section 132 in the business premises and the residential premises of the father of the assessee, certain amount of cash books of account and documents in respect of the assessee were seized. The AO issued notices to the assessee filed the return of income disclosing

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. JASWANT KAUR, MOHALI

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

200 {Madras} In the above referred case, during the course of search conducted under section 132 in the business premises and the residential premises of the father of the assessee, certain amount of cash books of account and documents in respect of the assessee were seized. The AO issued notices to the assessee filed the return of income disclosing

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. MANJIT KAUR, CHANDIGARH

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

200 {Madras} In the above referred case, during the course of search conducted under section 132 in the business premises and the residential premises of the father of the assessee, certain amount of cash books of account and documents in respect of the assessee were seized. The AO issued notices to the assessee filed the return of income disclosing

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. JASWANT KAUR, MOHALI

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

200 {Madras} In the above referred case, during the course of search conducted under section 132 in the business premises and the residential premises of the father of the assessee, certain amount of cash books of account and documents in respect of the assessee were seized. The AO issued notices to the assessee filed the return of income disclosing

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. PARAMJIT SINGH, MOHALI

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

200 {Madras} In the above referred case, during the course of search conducted under section 132 in the business premises and the residential premises of the father of the assessee, certain amount of cash books of account and documents in respect of the assessee were seized. The AO issued notices to the assessee filed the return of income disclosing

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. PARAMJIT SINGH, MOHALI

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

200 {Madras} In the above referred case, during the course of search conducted under section 132 in the business premises and the residential premises of the father of the assessee, certain amount of cash books of account and documents in respect of the assessee were seized. The AO issued notices to the assessee filed the return of income disclosing

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. KULWANT SINGH, MOHALI

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

200 {Madras} In the above referred case, during the course of search conducted under section 132 in the business premises and the residential premises of the father of the assessee, certain amount of cash books of account and documents in respect of the assessee were seized. The AO issued notices to the assessee filed the return of income disclosing

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)

200/- after claiming deductions under Chapter VI-A of the Act. The case was selected for scrutiny under compulsory manual selection due to a survey conducted under section 133A of the Act on 26/09/2016. During the survey, the assessee surrendered a total amount of Rs. 95,00,000/- under the heads of unexplained advances and loans

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/- u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 with respect to cash withdrawals without any finding doubting the source of funds withdrawn. 3. That under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (Appeals) had erred in upholding the order of the Ld. AO making an addition u/s 69A based on surmises and conjectures

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)

68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The said addition is bad in law and not sutainable in the eyes of law.” 4. At the outset, it is noted that this is the second round of appellate proceeding before this Tribunal. In the first round, pursuant to search and seizure operation under 132(1), the assessment order was passed under

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)

68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The said addition is bad in law and not sutainable in the eyes of law.” 4. At the outset, it is noted that this is the second round of appellate proceeding before this Tribunal. In the first round, pursuant to search and seizure operation under 132(1), the assessment order was passed under

SH. SANJAY SINGAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

200 days and till date those appeals had not been admitted by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court and as such the said order dt. 31/10/2018 in the case of another persons belonging to the same group and decided by the ITAT Delhi Bench, is intact. 2.1 Since the issues involved are common having similar facts in all these appeals

SMT. AARTI SINGAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

200 days and till date those appeals had not been admitted by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court and as such the said order dt. 31/10/2018 in the case of another persons belonging to the same group and decided by the ITAT Delhi Bench, is intact. 2.1 Since the issues involved are common having similar facts in all these appeals

SMT. AARTI SINGAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

200 days and till date those appeals had not been admitted by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court and as such the said order dt. 31/10/2018 in the case of another persons belonging to the same group and decided by the ITAT Delhi Bench, is intact. 2.1 Since the issues involved are common having similar facts in all these appeals

SH. SANJAY SINGAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

200 days and till date those appeals had not been admitted by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court and as such the said order dt. 31/10/2018 in the case of another persons belonging to the same group and decided by the ITAT Delhi Bench, is intact. 2.1 Since the issues involved are common having similar facts in all these appeals

SH. SANJAY SINGAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

200 days and till date those appeals had not been admitted by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court and as such the said order dt. 31/10/2018 in the case of another persons belonging to the same group and decided by the ITAT Delhi Bench, is intact. 2.1 Since the issues involved are common having similar facts in all these appeals

SMT. AARTI SINGAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

200 days and till date those appeals had not been admitted by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court and as such the said order dt. 31/10/2018 in the case of another persons belonging to the same group and decided by the ITAT Delhi Bench, is intact. 2.1 Since the issues involved are common having similar facts in all these appeals

SH. VARINDER KUMAR GUPTA,PATIALA vs. PR. CIT, PATIALA

In the result appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 754/Chd/2018 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shri Varinder Kumar Gupta, The Ito, Ward -5, बनाम # 278, Urban Estate, Phase-1 Patiala Patiala "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Anppg 8996Q अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and had been presumed as genuine by the Assessing Officer simply on the basis of these transactions being of banking nature. Huge transactions in the bank accounts in respect of an assessee who has shown meager income of Rs.8,43,730/- only should have been examined in depth. No income from

JT. CIT (OSD), (E), C-2, CHANDIGARH vs. CH. LEKH RAJ EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST, YAMUNANAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sanjay Gargआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 717/Chd/2019 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13

section 68; hence no additions are warranted. It is noted that this creditor has advanced a sum of Rs. .1,32,39,000/- to the appellant. On perusal of the ledger filed by the appellant which has been confirmed by the lender, it is observed that the said loan was extended in three entries of Rs.34,00,000/- dated