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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

250(6) of the Income Tax At, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’). 2. It was c o m m

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.

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. FACTUAL MATRIX 3. The assessee for the aforesaid business of running a hotel has been maintaining

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)

250 of the Act, Ld. CIT(A) mistakenly mentioned cash deposits and upheld Ld. AO's decision for addition under section 69A/69C of the Act. The CIT(A) should have accurately framed the order by considering the case's facts. It appears that CIT(A) relied solely on the remand report without thoroughly analyzing the facts presented during

TARLOCHAN SINGH ,BHAWANIGARH vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, PATIALA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

Section 250 indicate the amplitude and width which is no less wide than that of an ITO and the Appellate Authority could substitute the order of the ITO by one of his own." From the above, it is very clear that the powers of CIT(A) are coterminus with that of the AO. Hence, the credit in the capital

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

250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3,Gurgaon is against law and facts on the file in as much as he was not justified to uphold the action of the Learned Assessing Officer in making an addition of Rs. 28,30,02,558/-representing sale proceeds of equity shares held

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

250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3,Gurgaon is against law and facts on the file in as much as he was not justified to uphold the action of the Learned Assessing Officer in making an addition of Rs. 28,30,02,558/-representing sale proceeds of equity shares held

RAJIV KUMAR GOYAL,DHURI vs. DCIT, CC-2, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee 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 Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Dated 03/02/2023 In Appeal No. 10850/2018-19/It/Cit(A)-5/Ldh/2021-22 For 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. 03/02/2023 Which Is Hereiafter Referred To As The Impugned Order. Factual Matrix 3. The Assessee Had For The Relevant Year I.E; A.Y. 2019-20 Was Also Engaged In The Same Business I.E; Manufacturing Of Pvc Pipes & Had Filed

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. 03/02/2023 which is hereiafter referred to as the impugned order. Factual Matrix 3. The assessee had for the relevant year i.e; A.Y. 2019-20 was also engaged

M/S VIRTUOSO NETSOFT PVT. LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, C-1(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

68 of the Income Tax Act, may kindly be deleted keeping in view the above submissions." 4.2 The Ld. CIT(A) after considering the remand report of the A.O. and the rejoinder to the remand report by the assessee admitted the additional evidence under Rule 46A of Income Tax Rules 1962 by observing in para

SHRI HARISH SHARMA,LUDHIANA vs. ITO , LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

68 of the Act and computed the tax liability under the provisions of section 115BBE of the Act. A.Y .2017-18 Page 3 of 9 3. The assessee challenged the assessment order before the CIT(A). The Ld.CIT(A) after hearing the assessee dismissed the appeal and upheld the action of the AO. Against the said findings

SWARN GANGA JEWELLERS,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 4(1) NOW DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: This Tribunal Being Aggrieved By An Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/1045180258(1) For A.Y. 2017-18 Dt. 05/09/2022 Which Is Hereinafter Referred To As The “Impugned Order”. The Impugned Order Is Passed By Cit(A) In Terms Of Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. Factual Matrix 2. That Survey U/S 133A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Was Conducted On The Business Premises Of The Assessee On 06/09/2016. The Assessee Surrendered A Sum Of Rs. 50,00,000/- During The Survey & Paid Tax Thereon. The Return Of Income Was Filed On 01/11/2017 Declaring A Total Income Of Rs. 89,48,260/-. Thereafter The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny Under Compulsory Scrutiny Guidelines & Notice Under Section 143(2) Of The Act Was Issued On 11/09/2018. The Assessment Was Finalised Vide Order Dt. 23/12/2019 Whereby Addition Of Rs. 95,70,882/- Was Made U/S 68 R.W..S 115Bbe Of The Act.

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 who has sustained the assessment order of Ld. AO dated 22/12/2019 under section 68

SHRI BHUWAN GOYAL,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-1, LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-5, Ludhiana is against law and facts on the file in as much as he was not justified to arbitrarily uphold the action of the Ld. Assessing Officer in treating the sum of Rs. 1.00 crore out of total surrender made

SH. RAJNEESH THAKUR,LUDHIANA vs. ACIT, C-VII, LUDHIANA

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Smt.Annapurna Guptaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1565/Chd/2018 िनधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year : 2011-12

250(6)of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’). 2. Ground no. 1& 2, it was pointed out by the Ld.Counsel for the assessee, related to the same issue of addition made under 69A of the Act on account of alleged unexplained cash deposits in bank amounting to Rs. 16,49,000/-,and the grounds

SH. SANJAY SINGAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

250 Crores under section 132(4) of the Act in the whole group. The A.O. pointed out that aforesaid surrenderred amount included Rs. 159.61 crores of LTCG earned through M/s PIL for the A.Y. 2011-12 and in the hands of the assessee (Rs. 55.57 Crores) Sanjay Singhal HUF(Rs. 21.66 Crores) and Smt. Aarti Singhal (Rs. 82.38 Crores

SMT. AARTI SINGAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

250 Crores under section 132(4) of the Act in the whole group. The A.O. pointed out that aforesaid surrenderred amount included Rs. 159.61 crores of LTCG earned through M/s PIL for the A.Y. 2011-12 and in the hands of the assessee (Rs. 55.57 Crores) Sanjay Singhal HUF(Rs. 21.66 Crores) and Smt. Aarti Singhal (Rs. 82.38 Crores

SH. SANJAY SINGAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

250 Crores under section 132(4) of the Act in the whole group. The A.O. pointed out that aforesaid surrenderred amount included Rs. 159.61 crores of LTCG earned through M/s PIL for the A.Y. 2011-12 and in the hands of the assessee (Rs. 55.57 Crores) Sanjay Singhal HUF(Rs. 21.66 Crores) and Smt. Aarti Singhal (Rs. 82.38 Crores

SH. SANJAY SINGAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

250 Crores under section 132(4) of the Act in the whole group. The A.O. pointed out that aforesaid surrenderred amount included Rs. 159.61 crores of LTCG earned through M/s PIL for the A.Y. 2011-12 and in the hands of the assessee (Rs. 55.57 Crores) Sanjay Singhal HUF(Rs. 21.66 Crores) and Smt. Aarti Singhal (Rs. 82.38 Crores

SMT. AARTI SINGAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

250 Crores under section 132(4) of the Act in the whole group. The A.O. pointed out that aforesaid surrenderred amount included Rs. 159.61 crores of LTCG earned through M/s PIL for the A.Y. 2011-12 and in the hands of the assessee (Rs. 55.57 Crores) Sanjay Singhal HUF(Rs. 21.66 Crores) and Smt. Aarti Singhal (Rs. 82.38 Crores

SMT. AARTI SINGAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

250 Crores under section 132(4) of the Act in the whole group. The A.O. pointed out that aforesaid surrenderred amount included Rs. 159.61 crores of LTCG earned through M/s PIL for the A.Y. 2011-12 and in the hands of the assessee (Rs. 55.57 Crores) Sanjay Singhal HUF(Rs. 21.66 Crores) and Smt. Aarti Singhal (Rs. 82.38 Crores

EASTMAN INTERNATIONAL,LUDHIANA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

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

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi is against law and facts on the file in as much as he was not justified to uphold the addition at Rs. 1,18,18,817/- made by the Learned Assessing Officer by resort to provisions of Section 68