SMT. DEEPINDER KAUR JOHAL,PATIALA vs. ITO, WARD-4, PATIALA

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ANDSHRI PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

68,00,000/-to the sellers and an amount of Rs.2,60,00,000/-had been paid in F.Y.2010-11 relevant to A.Y.2011-12 and balance amount of Rs.2,08,00,000/-had been paid in the F.Y. 2011-12 relevant ITA 532/CHD/2023 A.Y. 2012-13 4 to A.Y. 2012-13. The assessee's share being 2/5th on such payment of Rs.2

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

68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, where any sum is found credited in the assessee's books and assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source thereof or the explanation furnished is found to be unsatisfactory, the sum so credited may be charged to Income-Tax as the income of the assessee of that previous year. A proviso

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

68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, where any sum is found credited in the assessee's books and assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source thereof or the explanation furnished is found to be unsatisfactory, the sum so credited may be charged to Income-Tax as the income of the assessee of that previous year. A proviso

HOME CONSTRUCTION CO, LUDHIANA,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

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

68,240. The AO also initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271AAB(1A) for undisclosed income and levied interest under Sections 234A

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH vs. ATMA RAM JEWELLERS, CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

68 could not be\nmade\". In the case of Smt Tripta Rani 142 taxmann.com 278, Hon'ble ITAT\nChandigarh has held \"Where cash deposits made in bank accounts of\nproprietorship concern during demonetization period were routed through\nregular books of account of assessee which were not rejected by AO and no\nincriminating material was found during search conducted at premises

SHRI RAJIV GUPTA,SIRSA vs. ITO-WARD-2, SIRSA

Bench: The Bench That The Lead

section 68 of the Act. 2.1. That while making the above addition, the learned Income Tax Officer has failed to appreciate the factual substratum of the case, statutory provisions of law and as such, addition so made is highly misconceived, totally arbitrary, wholly unjustified and therefore, unsustainable. 2.2. That while confirming the above addition, the learned Commissioner of Income

SMT. JAGDEEP KAUR,LUDHIANA vs. ITO, WARD 6(4), LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

Bench: This Hon’Ble Tribunal Under Section 253 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. The Assessee Is Aggrieved By Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022- 23/1048105767(1) Dt. 20/12/2022 Which Was Passed By The Ld. Cit(A) Nfac, Delhi Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Said First Appeal Was Dismissed By The Ld. Cit(A). Therefore Assessee Is Before Us. The Said Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Is Hereinafter Referred To As The “Impugned Order”. 4. In Form No. 36 The Assessee Interalia Has Take Up Following Grounds Of Appeal Against The Impugned Order Which Are Reproduced Below:

68 Rs. 7,35,000/- Assessed Income Rs. 7,35,000/- Assessed u/s 147 r.w.s 144 of the IT Act, 1961. Charge Interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C of the IT Act, 1961 accordingly. 15. The copy of order of AO passed under section

ASTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, LUDHIANA, AAYAKAR BHAWAN vs. WARYAM STEEL CASTING PRIVATE LIMITED, KANGANWAL ROAD

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

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

234A, 234B, and 234C was also charged. 4. Against the order of the Ld. AO the assessee went in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) in the impugned order held as under: 5.1. The facts relevant for the present appeal: 5.1.1. The Appellant is a Private Limited Company engaged in the business of manufacture of steel

WARYAM STEEL CASTINGS PRIVATE LIMITED,LUDHIANA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, LUDHIANA

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

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

234A, 234B, and 234C was also charged. 4. Against the order of the Ld. AO the assessee went in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) in the impugned order held as under: 5.1. The facts relevant for the present appeal: 5.1.1. The Appellant is a Private Limited Company engaged in the business of manufacture of steel

KATIANI EDUCATION SOCIETY,KULLU vs. DCIT, MANDI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Gupta

234A, B & C of the Act, which is consequential in nature, whereas, ground No.9 is general in nature and need not to be adjudicated. In view of this, the appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2007-08 is also treated as partly allowed. 19. In this appeal, the assessee has taken as many as 08 grounds of appeal, which

KATIANI EDUCATION SOCIETY,KULLU vs. DCIT, MANDI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Gupta

234A, B & C of the Act, which is consequential in nature, whereas, ground No.9 is general in nature and need not to be adjudicated. In view of this, the appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2007-08 is also treated as partly allowed. 19. In this appeal, the assessee has taken as many as 08 grounds of appeal, which

RAM SINGH,DISTRICT KAITHAL, HARYANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, KAITHAL, INCOME TAX OFFICE, AMBALA ROAD, KAITHAL

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: The Appeal Is Finally Heard Or Disposed Of.

234A and 234B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 5. That the Ld. Assessing Officer has erred in not considering allowing the benefit of cash withdrawal and redeposit in the bank account. 6. That the Appellant craves leave to add or amend the grounds of appeals before the appeal is finally heard or disposed of. 3. Briefly the facts

SH. AMIT CHAUDHRY,LUDHIANA vs. ITO, W-1(1), LUDHIANA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are dismissed

68 against the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. the Ld Appellate Authority has wrongly & illegally rejected the application for condonation of delay in filing appeal on account of technical glitches of income tax portal being in infancy stages of new e-filing procedure for filing appeals before Commissioner(Appeals. 6. That the interest u/s 234A, 234B, 234C

SH. SURESH CHAUDHRY,LUDHIANA vs. ITO, W-1(3), LUDHIANA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are dismissed

68 against the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. the Ld Appellate Authority has wrongly & illegally rejected the application for condonation of delay in filing appeal on account of technical glitches of income tax portal being in infancy stages of new e-filing procedure for filing appeals before Commissioner(Appeals. 6. That the interest u/s 234A, 234B, 234C

SH. ASHISH CHAUDHRY,LUDHIANA vs. ITO, W-1(1), LUDHIANA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are dismissed

68 against the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. the Ld Appellate Authority has wrongly & illegally rejected the application for condonation of delay in filing appeal on account of technical glitches of income tax portal being in infancy stages of new e-filing procedure for filing appeals before Commissioner(Appeals. 6. That the interest u/s 234A, 234B, 234C

MANJINDER SINGH,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO WARD 5 (5), CHANDIGARH

In the result, we set- aside the matter to the file of the AO and appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

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

section 68 without having been able to understand the vital structure and the accounting entries and without fully and comprehensively understanding the case. 3. That the Ld. AO has wrongly and illegally made addition of Rs. 42,00,000/- ignoring the pleadings on record and against the facts and circumstances of the case and without appreciating the surrounding circumstances

BANSAL RICE TRADERS,SANGRUR vs. ITO-WARD, SANGRUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

234A. In view of the above it is prayed that appeal of the appellant may kindly be accepted and oblige." 5.1 The assessee also submitted an application under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules 1962 for admission of the additional evidence which read as under: “Sub:- Application for admission of additional evidence under Rule 46A of the Income

SUNRISE INFRATEC PRIVATE LIMITED,PANCHKULA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, CHANDIGARH

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. 1196/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Sunrise Infratec Private The Ito, बनाम Limited, Ward 3(5), H.No. 858, Sector 4, Chandigarh Vs. Panchkula 134112 "थायी लेखा सं./ Pan No: Aaqcs4002D अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent ( Hybrid Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Sh. T.N. Singla, Ca (Virtual Mode) राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Sh. Rajat Kumar Kureel, Cit Dr

68 of the Income Tax Act on account of cash deposits made in the bank account on different dates. 15. That the Ld. JCIT (A) has wrongly upheld penalty proceedings initiated by the AO u/s 271(1)(c) and 271(1)(b). 16. That the Ld. JCIT (A) has wrongly upheld interest charged by the AO u/s 234A and 234B

SUKHDEV RAJ,SIRSA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, SIRSA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

234A of the Act, interest of Rs. 6,38,604/- u/s 234B of the Act which are not leviable on the facts of the appellant. 6. In the present appeal, the assessee has filed a petition seeking permission to raise and argue additional grounds, which are purely legal in nature. The proposed additional grounds are reproduced below: 1. "That