DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. PARAMJIT SINGH, MOHALI

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

22. So far as the arguments of the Ld. DR that such an interpretation would defeat the purpose of provisions of section 115BBE substituted by Taxation Law (2 n d Amendment) Act, 2016 w.e.f. 1.4.2017 and section 271AAC of the Act w.e.f. 1.4.2017. In our view, the above contention of the Ld. DR is not tenable. The relevant

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. PARAMJIT SINGH, MOHALI

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

22. So far as the arguments of the Ld. DR that such an interpretation would defeat the purpose of provisions of section 115BBE substituted by Taxation Law (2 n d Amendment) Act, 2016 w.e.f. 1.4.2017 and section 271AAC of the Act w.e.f. 1.4.2017. In our view, the above contention of the Ld. DR is not tenable. The relevant

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. KULWANT SINGH, MOHALI

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

22. So far as the arguments of the Ld. DR that such an interpretation would defeat the purpose of provisions of section 115BBE substituted by Taxation Law (2 n d Amendment) Act, 2016 w.e.f. 1.4.2017 and section 271AAC of the Act w.e.f. 1.4.2017. In our view, the above contention of the Ld. DR is not tenable. The relevant

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. MANJIT KAUR, CHANDIGARH

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

22. So far as the arguments of the Ld. DR that such an interpretation would defeat the purpose of provisions of section 115BBE substituted by Taxation Law (2 n d Amendment) Act, 2016 w.e.f. 1.4.2017 and section 271AAC of the Act w.e.f. 1.4.2017. In our view, the above contention of the Ld. DR is not tenable. The relevant

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. JASWANT KAUR, MOHALI

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

22. So far as the arguments of the Ld. DR that such an interpretation would defeat the purpose of provisions of section 115BBE substituted by Taxation Law (2 n d Amendment) Act, 2016 w.e.f. 1.4.2017 and section 271AAC of the Act w.e.f. 1.4.2017. In our view, the above contention of the Ld. DR is not tenable. The relevant

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. JASWANT KAUR, MOHALI

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

22. So far as the arguments of the Ld. DR that such an interpretation would defeat the purpose of provisions of section 115BBE substituted by Taxation Law (2 n d Amendment) Act, 2016 w.e.f. 1.4.2017 and section 271AAC of the Act w.e.f. 1.4.2017. In our view, the above contention of the Ld. DR is not tenable. The relevant

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. KULWANT SINGH, MOHALI

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

22. So far as the arguments of the Ld. DR that such an interpretation would defeat the purpose of provisions of section 115BBE substituted by Taxation Law (2 n d Amendment) Act, 2016 w.e.f. 1.4.2017 and section 271AAC of the Act w.e.f. 1.4.2017. In our view, the above contention of the Ld. DR is not tenable. The relevant

INCOME TAX OFFICER, PARWANOO vs. DEEPAK KUMAR, NAHAN

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

68 in respect of the income so surrendered as business income. It was further submitted that the provisions of Section 115BBE cannot straight be applied and only in a situation where the AO has invoked the deeming provision, the rate of tax has to be determined as per the provisions of Section 115BBE of the Act. Further, reliance

M/S FAMINA KNIT FABS,LUDHIANA vs. ACIT, C-3, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

68, section 69, section 69A, section 69B, section 69C or section 69D, at the rate of thirty per cent.; and (b) the amount of income-tax with which the assessee would have been chargeable had his total income been reduced by the amount of income referred to in clause (a). (2) Notwithstanding anything contained

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 r.w.s 115BBE of the Act. The character of Rs. 38,00,000/- so surrendered is changed from business income to unexplained investment by virtue of section 69B r.w.s 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 19. The letter of surrender dt. 17/09/2018 which are relied upon by both the authorities below unequivocally speaks of surrender

SH. ASHOK JINDAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

section 2(22)(e) be deleted for both the years of the assessee’s appeal. 9. Regarding the Ground No. 3 pertaining to the addition of Rs. 12.58 Lacs on account of seized material the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of notings on the seized material. 10. Before

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. ASHOK JINDAL, CHANDIGARH

section 2(22)(e) be deleted for both the years of the assessee’s appeal. 9. Regarding the Ground No. 3 pertaining to the addition of Rs. 12.58 Lacs on account of seized material the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of notings on the seized material. 10. Before

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 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and subsequently denying claim of exemption u/s 10(38). 2. That the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) further gravely erred in upholding the action of the Learned Assessing Officer in making an addition of Rs. 1,76,33,254/- on account of alleged commission expenses allegedly paid by the appellant for arranging

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 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and subsequently denying claim of exemption u/s 10(38). 2. That the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) further gravely erred in upholding the action of the Learned Assessing Officer in making an addition of Rs. 1,76,33,254/- on account of alleged commission expenses allegedly paid by the appellant for arranging

SH. KRISHAN KUMAR,KHANNA vs. DCIT, CC-1, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

68 of the Act and computed the Tax liability under the provisions of the section 115BBE of the Act." 7.7 As regards, the charging of income tax @ 60% invoking the provisions of section 115BBE on the income declared by 175-Chd-2023– Shri Krishan Kumar, Khanna 18 the Assessee in its return of income. The Assessee has already

ITO, CHANDIGARH vs. M/S J.N. GOYAL HOSPITAL PVT. LTD., CHANDIGARH

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2010-11

section 2(22)(e) of the Act. Accordingly, we delete the addition of Rs. 68,35,028/- made on account

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

SCOTT EDIL ADVANCE RESEARCH LABORATORIES AND EDUCATION LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH

Section 132 of the Act in Scott Edil Group of cases\non 15.11.2017. Since the facts involved in all these captioned appeals\nare identical and there are common issues, hence the same were heard\ntogether and the same are being disposed of by this common order.\n2. The grounds/issues raised in all the appeals are summarized as\nunder:\nITA

SCOTT EDIL ADVANCE RESEARCH LABORATORIES AND EDUCATION LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH

Section 132 of the Act in Scott Edil Group of cases\non 15.11.2017. Since the facts involved in all these captioned appeals\nare identical and there are common issues, hence the same were heard\ntogether and the same are being disposed of by this common order.\n2. The grounds/issues raised in all the appeals are summarized as\nunder :\nITA