MITHU RAM,DIRBA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, SUNAM

In the result, ground no. 4 & 5 are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Cit(A) Proves This Fact. 2. That The Assessee Was Prevented By Sufficient & Reasonable Cause In Not Attending To The Proceedings Before The Cit(A) Due Oversight/ Skip Of Mail Regarding The Date Of Hearing Because Busy In Filling The Income Tax Returns.

section 68 of the Act. 5. Being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) and it was submitted that AO erred in law by making an addition of Rs.25.60,798/- on whimsical observation, whereas appellant had filed the confirmed copy of account. It was stated that appellant had made purchase of goods

SHRI KRISHAN KUMAR JALAN,BANGALORE vs. ITO, W-1, SIRSA

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Section 68 of the Act,\nwhere any sum is found credited in the books of the assessee for any\nprevious year the same may be charged to income tax as the income of\nthe assessee of that previous year if the explanation offered by the\nassessee about the nature and source thereof is, in the opinion of the\nAssessing

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1),, CHANDIGARH vs. HARI KRISHAN GUPTA, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing Of Appeal.

214 ITR 801) and Durga Prasad More (82 ITR 540), the AO held that no prudent person would hold invalid currency for long and deposit it in parts. The AO thus treated the entire deposit of Rs.1,11,67,000/- as unexplained cash credit u/s 68, taxable u/s 115BBE, and completed assessment at an income of Rs.1

M/S GALLEY FINANCIERS & PROPERTY CONSULTANTS PVT. LTD.,PATIALA vs. ITO, PATIALA

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

Bench: Smt.Diva Singh & Smt.Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.51/Chd/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11

section 68 by insertion of proviso is clarificatory and hence retrospective. The contrary arguments advanced by the Id. AR, being devoid of any merit, are hereby jettisoned." In the above view of the matter, the Addition made on this count is upheld to extent mentioned in relevant paras. Therefore this ground of appeal is partly allowed.” 7. Before

M/S NAMDHARI INDUSTRIAL TRADERS PVT. LTD.,LUDHIANA vs. ACIT, LUDHIANA

section 143(3) of the Act. 2. Brief facts of the case emanating from the record and pleadings of the parties are that the assessee company engaged in the business of manufacturing of pre-structured engineering goods, filed its return of income for the assessment year under consideration declaring total income of Rs. 31,50,165/- Since the case

SH. ASHOK KUMAR OSWAL (DECEASED) THROUGH MRS. MANJU OSWAL (LEGAL HEIR),LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, C-7, LUDHIANA

In the result, appeals of the Assessees are allowed for statistical purposes

section 68 of the Act. The reliance was placed on the following case laws: • Sumati Dayal Vs. CIT 214

SHRI ADISH OSWAL,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, C-7, LUDHIANA

In the result, appeals of the Assessees are allowed for statistical purposes

section 68 of the Act. The reliance was placed on the following case laws: • Sumati Dayal Vs. CIT 214

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

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

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

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

SKYCITY BUILDERS AND PROMOTERS PRIVATE LIMITED, ,KHARAR, RUPNAGAR vs. DCIT WARD 6(1), CHANDIGARH JAO ITO 6(1) MOHALI, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the corresponding grounds as raised by the revenue stand dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1066/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/S Skycity Builders & Promoters Pvt. Ltd. Dcit Ward 6(1) बनाम/ Room No.3, 1St Floor Sco-90, City Heart Kharar-Chandigarh Road, Livestock Complex Vs. Kharar, Rupnagar (Punjab) - 140301 Sector – 68, Mohali -160062 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aapcs-2435-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 2. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1217/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Dcit Ward 6(1) M/S Skycity Builders & Promoters Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ Room No.3, 1St Floor Sco-90, City Heart Livestock Complex Kharar-Chandigarh Road, Vs. Sector – 68, Mohali -160062 Kharar, Rupnagar (Punjab) - 140301 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aapcs-2435-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Ms. Yamini (Cit) - Ld. Dr (Virtual) सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05.02.2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 16.03.2026

section 68, without the assessee demonstrating actual financial capacity of lenders and genuineness of transactions? 3. Whether the CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition by not appreciating that the bank statements of creditors revealed heavy cash deposits immediately prior to advancing loans and that many creditors operated through cash credit accounts which turned into NPAs, thereby establishing that

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 6 (1), MOHALI vs. SKYCITY BUILDERS AND PROMOTERS PRIVATE LIMITED, KHRAR PUNJAB

In the result, the corresponding grounds as raised by the revenue stand dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1066/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/S Skycity Builders & Promoters Pvt. Ltd. Dcit Ward 6(1) बनाम/ Room No.3, 1St Floor Sco-90, City Heart Kharar-Chandigarh Road, Livestock Complex Vs. Kharar, Rupnagar (Punjab) - 140301 Sector – 68, Mohali -160062 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aapcs-2435-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 2. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1217/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Dcit Ward 6(1) M/S Skycity Builders & Promoters Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ Room No.3, 1St Floor Sco-90, City Heart Livestock Complex Kharar-Chandigarh Road, Vs. Sector – 68, Mohali -160062 Kharar, Rupnagar (Punjab) - 140301 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aapcs-2435-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Ms. Yamini (Cit) - Ld. Dr (Virtual) सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05.02.2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 16.03.2026

section 68, without the assessee demonstrating actual financial capacity of lenders and genuineness of transactions? 3. Whether the CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition by not appreciating that the bank statements of creditors revealed heavy cash deposits immediately prior to advancing loans and that many creditors operated through cash credit accounts which turned into NPAs, thereby establishing that

DCIT, CIRCLE -1, LUDHIANA vs. M/S VIDHATA INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Dr Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 214/Chd/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 The Deputy Commissioner Vs. M/S Vidhata Industries बनाम Private Limited, Of Income Tax, Opp. New Dmc Hospital, Circle-1, Main Road, Civil Lines, Ludhiana Ludhiana "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aaccv7502R अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Sh. Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Dharam Vir, Jcit, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 16.04.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 22.04.2024 आदेश/Order Per Dr. Krinwant Sahay, A.M.:

68 read with section 115BBE of the Act. 9. We have considered the facts mentioned in the assessment order by the Assessing Officer and findings of the ld. CIT(A), NFAC on this issue. We have also considered the arguments of the ld. DR and the counter arguments of the ld. Counsel for the Assessee on this issue

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 solely on basis of information received from Investigation Wing that lenders from whom assessee-company acquired loans were indulged in bogus accommodation entries, since assessee was not granted an opportunity to cross-examine persons whose statements were recorded during Investigation, Impugned addition made on basis of such investigation which was not privy to assessee were

KANGRA VALLEY GARDEN HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED,KANGRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD DHARAMSHALA, HIMACHAL PRADESH, DHARAMSHALA

Appeal of the assessee is allowed as and by

Bench: This Tribunal As & By Way Of Second Appeal.

Section 142(1) of the Act was issued on 14th August, 2015 fixing the case for hearing on 26th August, 2015. 2.8 That in response to the said notice and further proceedings Shri Sanjiv Rana, Advocate, AR of the assessee attended the proceedings from time to time and filed replies and evidences as called for. 2.9 That the books

KANGRA VALLEY GARDEN HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED,KANGRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD DHARAMSHALA, HIMACHAL PRADESH, DHARAMSHALA

Appeal of the assessee is allowed as and by

Bench: This Tribunal As & By Way Of Second Appeal.

Section 142(1) of the Act was issued on 14th August, 2015 fixing the case for hearing on 26th August, 2015. 2.8 That in response to the said notice and further proceedings Shri Sanjiv Rana, Advocate, AR of the assessee attended the proceedings from time to time and filed replies and evidences as called for. 2.9 That the books