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

M/S BASSI STEELS LTD.,MOHALI vs. DCIT, MOHALI

Bench: Shri. Sanjay Garg, Judicial, Member & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2005-06

section 148 which has been permitted. Accordingly the Ld.AR has signed on the ground of appeal to that effect .Hence this ground of appeal is treated as not pressed. 3. Brief facts on the issue are that Assessing Officer received investigation report from the Investigation Wing of the department that on the basis of searches conducted on the premises

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

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 ITR 465, K.C.N. Chandrasekhar Vs AC IT (ITAT.Bang

ITO, LUDHIANA vs. SH. PARDEEP AGGARWAL, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2010-11

68 of the Act. This also amounts to double taxation or double addition of the income in view of the fact that the same amount has actually been shown by the assessee as his income in his computation of income though the same has also been claimed as exempt under section 10(38) of the Act. In view

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

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

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

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

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

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