SH. ABHIMANYU SOIN,LUDHIANA vs. ACIT, LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri. Sanjay Garg, Judicial, Member & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2011-12

Section 68. Those are: (i) identity of the investors; (ii) their creditworthiness/ investments; and (Hi) genuineness of the transaction. Only when these three ingredients are established prima facie, the department is required to undertake further exercise." 10.2 In the case of CIT Vs Prescision Finance P. LTD. (Cal)208

DCIT, C-1(1) , CHANDIGARH vs. M/S FIDELITY INFORMATION SERVICES INDIA PVT. LTD., CHANDIGARH

In the result, the cross-objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

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

68 days which is not an inordinate long period is condoned. In the result, the delay in filing the cross- objection is condoned and the same is hereby admitted for necessary adjudication. 26. Now, coming to the various grounds of appeal taken by the assessee in its cross-objection so filed, it is noted that the assessee has effectively challenged

M/S LUCKY WINES,FATEHBAD vs. DCIT, SIRSA

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

68 of the Act. 6. Being aggrieved the assessee carried the matter to the Ld. CIT(A) and submitted that sum of Rs. 9,50,000/- was advanced from Syndicate Bank through RTGS on 25/05/2009 by Shri Jagdish Chander S/o Shri Ram Niwas having PAN-AASPC2464L to Shri Manoj Kumar, copy of Bank Account was also furnished

AARTI SINGAL,NEW DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed

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

68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and denying claim of exemption u/s 10(38). That the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax 2. (Appeals)-3 was further not justified to arbitrarily uphold the addition of Rs. 2,34,34,280/- on account of alleged commission expenses alleged paid by the appellant for arranging alleged entries in respect of long term

SANJAY SINGAL (HUF),NEW DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH , CHANDIGARH

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed

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

68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and denying claim of exemption u/s 10(38). That the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax 2. (Appeals)-3 was further not justified to arbitrarily uphold the addition of Rs. 2,34,34,280/- on account of alleged commission expenses alleged paid by the appellant for arranging alleged entries in respect of long term

SANJAY SINGAL,NEW DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed

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

68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and denying claim of exemption u/s 10(38). That the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax 2. (Appeals)-3 was further not justified to arbitrarily uphold the addition of Rs. 2,34,34,280/- on account of alleged commission expenses alleged paid by the appellant for arranging alleged entries in respect of long term

AARTI SINGAL,NEW DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed

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

68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and denying claim of exemption u/s 10(38). That the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax 2. (Appeals)-3 was further not justified to arbitrarily uphold the addition of Rs. 2,34,34,280/- on account of alleged commission expenses alleged paid by the appellant for arranging alleged entries in respect of long term

ANIKET SINGAL,NEW DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed

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

68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and denying claim of exemption u/s 10(38). That the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax 2. (Appeals)-3 was further not justified to arbitrarily uphold the addition of Rs. 2,34,34,280/- on account of alleged commission expenses alleged paid by the appellant for arranging alleged entries in respect of long term

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 Act. However, the Ld. PCIT, for the reasons best known to him had not examined the said details though made available by the assessee. In our considered opinion this approach of the Ld. PCIT cannot accepted, as some inquiries are required to be made by the Ld. PCIT so as to arrive at the conclusion

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

section 69A of the Act in respect of cash deposited during the demonetization period which is represented by sales is required. In view of the facts quoted above, the addition made of Rs.6,89,67,208/- u/s 69A of the Act is hereby deleted and accordingly ground 3 is allowed. 5.10. In ground 4, the appellant tends to challenge

SHER SINGH,PALAMPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, PALAMPUR

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

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

208% b) Percentage increase between 1(b) and 2(b) 167% Month wise Cash Op. cash in Cash sales Cash with Closing deposited in hand including vat drawl from cash on Bank tax the bank hand April, 2016 120963.90 890162.00 475000.00 0 7220.90 May, 2016 7220.90 523856.00 285000.00 0 129631.90 June,2016 129631.90 413073.00 345000.00 0 91289.80 July

M/S CHALAKI PRIMARY CO-OPERATIVE MILK PRODUCER SOCIETY LTD.,MORINDA vs. ITO, W2(4), ROPAR

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

208/- 4. That the learned CIT(A)-1, Chandigarh, was not justified to dismiss the third ground of appeal regarding deduction of Rs. 1,076/- u/s 80P on profit on trading of cattle feed and ghee. 5. That the learned CIT(A)-1, Chandigarh, was not justified to dismiss the fourth ground of appeal regarding addition

M/S CHANDIGARH LAWN TENNIS ASSOCIATION,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO (EXEMPTIONS), CHANDIGARH

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptaassessment Year : 2013-14 Chandigarh Lawn Tennis Vs. The Ito (Exemptions), Association, Ward, Chandigarh Sector 10, Chandigarh Pan No. Aaatc4943J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sh. Y.K. Sud, Ca Respondent By : Smt. Chanderkanta, Addl. Cit (On 22.3.2018) & Sh.Yoginder Mittal, Sr. Dr (On 13.7.2018) Date Of Hearing : 22.03.2018 & 13.7.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.07.2018

208 : (1939) 7 ITR 415] where it was held that the object of supplying the community with an organ of educated public opinion by publication of a newspaper was an object of general public utility and hence charitable in character, even though the activity of publication of the newspaper was carried on commercial lines with the object of earning profit

CHANDIGARH EDUCATIONAL TRUST,MOHALI vs. PR.CIT-CENTRAL,GURGAON, AT CHANDIGARH

208 Taxman 236 (Del) • Teleprolu Bapanaiah Vidyadharma Nidhi Trust Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax 167 ITR 482 (AP) 5.14 As regards to the submissions of the assessee that as per the proviso to section 164(2) of the Act where the whole or any part of the relevant income was not exempted under section

CHANDIGARH EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,MOHALI vs. PR.CIT(CENTRAL)-GURGAON, AT CHANDIGARH

208 Taxman 236 (Del) • Teleprolu Bapanaiah Vidyadharma Nidhi Trust Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax 167 ITR 482 (AP) 5.14 As regards to the submissions of the assessee that as per the proviso to section 164(2) of the Act where the whole or any part of the relevant income was not exempted under section

SHRI GURU RAM DASS EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,MOHALI vs. PR.CIT(CENTRAL) GURGAON, AT CHANDIGARH

208 Taxman 236 (Del) • Teleprolu Bapanaiah Vidyadharma Nidhi Trust Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax 167 ITR 482 (AP) 5.14 As regards to the submissions of the assessee that as per the proviso to section 164(2) of the Act where the whole or any part of the relevant income was not exempted under section

SMT. SHANKRI DEVI,PANCHKULA vs. ACIT, PANCKULA CIRCLE, PANCHKULA

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

68, Shiv Shakti Colony, Pinjore-134102 "ायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: EAAPS5523L अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ"/Respondent िनधा"रती की ओर से/Assessee by : Smt. Neelam Dhiman, C.A (Virtual) राज" की ओर से/ Revenue by : Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 668/Chd/ 2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Shri Suresh Pal, बनाम The ITO, Vill

PAWAN KUMAR,FATEHABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, FATEHABAD

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

68, Shiv Shakti Colony, Pinjore-134102 "ायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: EAAPS5523L अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ"/Respondent िनधा"रती की ओर से/Assessee by : Smt. Neelam Dhiman, C.A (Virtual) राज" की ओर से/ Revenue by : Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 668/Chd/ 2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Shri Suresh Pal, बनाम The ITO, Vill

SH. AMARDEEP SINGH ATHWAL,YAMUNANAGAR vs. ITO, WARD-1, YAMUNANAGAR

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

68, Shiv Shakti Colony, Pinjore-134102 "ायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: EAAPS5523L अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ"/Respondent िनधा"रती की ओर से/Assessee by : Smt. Neelam Dhiman, C.A (Virtual) राज" की ओर से/ Revenue by : Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 668/Chd/ 2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Shri Suresh Pal, बनाम The ITO, Vill