M/S AGYA RAM MANOHAR LAL,KHANNA vs. PR.CIT(CENTRAL), LUDHIANA

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

216 Taxman 153 and decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High court in case of Fakir Mohmed Haji Hasan Vs. CIT 120 taxman 11. 5. In his rejoinder, the Ld. AR submitted that the Ld. CIT, DR had argued that once the Assessing Officer having mentioned in the order, while making the addition u/s 69C as per para

SANJEEV KUMAR GOYAL,FATEHABAD vs. DCIT, CC-2, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is allowed

Bench: This Hon’Ble Tribunal Under Section 253 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 As Amended From Time To Time. 2. The Assessee Is Aggrieved By The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Dt. 20/01/2023 In Appeal No. 10853/2018-19/It/Cit(A)-5/Ldh/2021-22 For The A.Y. 2019-20 Under Section 250(6) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Which Was Dismissed. Therefore The Present Second Appeal Under Section 253 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Before Us Against The Aforesaid Order Dt. 20/01/2023 Which Is Hereinafter Referred To As The Impugned Order.

68 has to be assessed under section 56. In the case before us, source of unexplained cash credits is not known and hence they cannot be linked to any known source/head of income including income from other sources. In order to constitute 'income from 'other sources', the source, namely, the "other sources", has to be identified. Income from unexplained

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

In the result, all the above appeals are allowed

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 939/Chd/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Shri Aniket Singal बनाम The DCIT Central Circle-1 Chandigarh 4, Amritashergil Marg, New Delhi- 110003 स्थायी लेखा सं./ PAN NO: CZCPS6126E अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 1145/Chd/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Smt. Aarti Singal बनाम The DCIT Central Circle-1 Chandigarh 53, Jor Bagh, New Delhi-110003 स

68 and that as to whether the authorities below are justified in making addition of an amount of Rs. 1,76,33,254/- under Section 69C of the Act, on account of alleged unaccounted commission paid by the assessee at the rate of 6.5% for the purpose of earning Long Term Capital Gains. 9.1 We find from the record

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

In the result, all the above appeals are allowed

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 939/Chd/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Shri Aniket Singal बनाम The DCIT 4, Amritashergil Marg, New Delhi- 110003 Central Circle-1 Chandigarh स्थायी लेखा सं./ PAN NO: CZCPS6126E अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 1145/Chd/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Smt. Aarti Singal बनाम The DCIT 53, Jor Bagh, New Delhi-110003 Central Circle-1 Chandigarh स

68 and that as to whether the authorities below are justified in making addition of an amount of Rs. 1,76,33,254/- under Section 69C of the Act, on account of alleged unaccounted commission paid by the assessee at the rate of 6.5% for the purpose of earning Long Term Capital Gains. 9.1 We find from the record

M/S JASHAN FINLEASE LTD.,KHANNA vs. DCIT, CC-1, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

68 to 69 and reliance was placed on the decision of Coordinate Chandigarh Benches in case of Gaurish Steels P. Ltd. Vs. Asst. CIT reported in 43 ITR 414 and DCIT Vs. M/s Marshal Machines Pvt. Ltd. 57 /Chd/2017. 6. The submissions so filed by the assessee were considered but not found acceptable

SAHIL SINGLA,CHANDIGARH vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC-2, CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 68 of the Act. 19.1 The assessee maintains that the Learned Assessing Officer has considered the Bank Passbook/Statements as books of account, then, no addition can be made u/s 69 of the Act, as all the investments were accounted for and made through the regular Bank a/c of the appellant and if the Assessing Officer assents to/abides

WINSOME TEXTILE INDUSTRIES LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1), CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

216 ITR 811 (Bom.) :— "It is also well-settled that the reasons for reopening are required to be recorded by the assessing authority before issuing any notice under section 148 by virtue of the provisions of section 148(2) at the relevant time. Only the reason so recorded can be looked at for sustaining or setting aside

DCIT, LUDHIANA vs. M/S INCITE HOMECARE PVT. LTD., LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R.Kumarassessment Year: 2011-12

section 68 have also been addressed and all go to prove the genuineness of the transactions. The evidences, it was submitted, stands unassailed by the Revenue. Inviting attention to the 3 volume of paper books filed, it was submitted, that the details and documents on the basis of which the conclusion has been arrived

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

68 of the Act . 6. That the CIT(A) has grossly erred in ignoring and misinterpreting the facts available on record and has passed the order based on guesswork and surmises and conjectures. 3 A.Y.2010-11 7. That the various observations made by the CIT(A) in the appellate order are illegal, contrary to facts on record and based on surmises

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

section 68 of the Act AO has jurisdiction to make addition where any sum is found credited in the bank account of the assessee A.Y. 2012-13 Page 11 of 14 and the assessee offers no explanation about nature and source thereof or explanation offered by him is not in the opinion of the A.O. satisfactory

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 and that as to whether the authorities below are justified in making addition of an amount of Rs.2,34,34,280/- under Section 69C of the Act, on account of alleged unaccounted commission paid by the assessee at the rate of 6.5% for the purpose of earning Long Term Capital Gains. 9.1 We find from the record that

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 and that as to whether the authorities below are justified in making addition of an amount of Rs.2,34,34,280/- under Section 69C of the Act, on account of alleged unaccounted commission paid by the assessee at the rate of 6.5% for the purpose of earning Long Term Capital Gains. 9.1 We find from the record that

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 and that as to whether the authorities below are justified in making addition of an amount of Rs.2,34,34,280/- under Section 69C of the Act, on account of alleged unaccounted commission paid by the assessee at the rate of 6.5% for the purpose of earning Long Term Capital Gains. 9.1 We find from the record that

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 and that as to whether the authorities below are justified in making addition of an amount of Rs.2,34,34,280/- under Section 69C of the Act, on account of alleged unaccounted commission paid by the assessee at the rate of 6.5% for the purpose of earning Long Term Capital Gains. 9.1 We find from the record that

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 and that as to whether the authorities below are justified in making addition of an amount of Rs.2,34,34,280/- under Section 69C of the Act, on account of alleged unaccounted commission paid by the assessee at the rate of 6.5% for the purpose of earning Long Term Capital Gains. 9.1 We find from the record that

SRI RAM HEALTH CARE PRIVATE LIMITED,BADDI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - PARWANOO, PARWANOO

In the result, all the appeal of the Assessee stand allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 850/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Sri Ram Health Care Private The Dcit, Limited, बनाम Circle. 81C/2 Epip Phase I, Parwanoo Vs. Jharmajari, Baddi, Himachal Pradesh 173205 "थायी लेखा सं./ Pan No: Aamcs5840H अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent ( Physical Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Sh. Manoj Kumar, Ca राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Dr.Ranjit Kaur, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr

section 68 in the hands of the assessee company on account of share application money, contravening the binding judgment of Hon'ble SC in case of CIT vs Lovely Exports (P) Ltd.: 216

RAVI BINDAL & MADAN LAL CHAUDHARY,PARWANOO vs. ITO, PARWANOO

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg

68,216/- in respect of disallowing interest claimed under ‘Income from House Property.’ 3. The sole issue involved in this appeal is relating to the disallowance of interest expenditure claimed by the assessee as deduction against the rental income earned from House Property as per provisions of section

SH. GURINDER MAKKAR,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-3, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is disposed off in light of aforesaid directions

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

section 32 r.w.s 43(1) of the Act. 4. Being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who has since sustained the said findings of the AO. 5. Against the said findings and the direction of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us. 6. During the course of hearing

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