DCIT,CIRCLE-I, LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA vs. ADINATH TEXTILES LIMITED, LUDHIANA

In the result both the appeal filed by the Revenue and Cross objection filed by the Assessee are dismissed

Bench: the appeal is finally heard or disposed off.

section 68 the Income Tax Act, 1961amounting to R- 2,20,32,738/-. 4. That Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi erred on facts and law, in deleting the addition u/s 69Cof the Income Tax As on account of explained expenditure amounting toRs.3,83,50,000/- 5. That the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi erred on facts

SBS BIOTECH UNIT II,SIRMOUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

68,78,900/- as originally declared and thereafter notice under section 143(2) and 142(1) alongwith detailed questionnaire were issued and after taking into consideration the submissions so filed by the assessee and after carrying out necessary examination/verification, the assessment proceedings were completed under section 147 r.w.s 144B vide order dt. 30/03/2022 without drawing any adverse inference

M/S SADASHIV VENTURES,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 33/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S Sadashiv Ventures, Vs. The Dcit, बनाम Circle-1, Sco 9, Sector 7, Chandigarh Madhya Marg, Chandigarh "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Abufs6758C अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent ( Physical Hering ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Nikhil Goyal, Advocate & Shri Ashok Goyal, Ca राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Vivek Vardhan, Jcit, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 13.08.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 04.09.2024

68 based on surmises and conjectures and without considering the documents on record. 4. That the impugned order was totally based on conjectures and surmises which were the results of borrowed satisfaction. 5. That the loss incurred by the Assessee is genuine that can also be justified by the study of SEBI Study dated January 05, 2023 "Analysis of Profit

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. M/S AJAY KUMAR SOOD ENGINEERS AND CONTRACTORS, SHIMLA

The appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

68,805/- as unexplained expenditure. A.Y. 2008-09 relates to addition of Rs. 5,28,126/- as unexplained expenditure. A.Y. 2009-10 relates to addition of Rs. 8,70,269/- as unexplained expenditure. Ground No. 4 for the A.Y. 2011-12 relates to addition of Rs. 24,90,000/- as unexplained expenditure. 10.1 During the course of search and seizure

M/S AJAY KUMAR SOOD ENGINEERS & CONTRACTORS,SHIMLA vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

The appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

68,805/- as unexplained expenditure. A.Y. 2008-09 relates to addition of Rs. 5,28,126/- as unexplained expenditure. A.Y. 2009-10 relates to addition of Rs. 8,70,269/- as unexplained expenditure. Ground No. 4 for the A.Y. 2011-12 relates to addition of Rs. 24,90,000/- as unexplained expenditure. 10.1 During the course of search and seizure

M/S AJAY KUMAR SOOD ENGINEERS & CONTRACTORS,SHIMLA vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

The appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

68,805/- as unexplained expenditure. A.Y. 2008-09 relates to addition of Rs. 5,28,126/- as unexplained expenditure. A.Y. 2009-10 relates to addition of Rs. 8,70,269/- as unexplained expenditure. Ground No. 4 for the A.Y. 2011-12 relates to addition of Rs. 24,90,000/- as unexplained expenditure. 10.1 During the course of search and seizure

M/S AJAY KUMAR SOOD ENGINEERS & CONTRACTORS,SHIMLA vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

The appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

68,805/- as unexplained expenditure. A.Y. 2008-09 relates to addition of Rs. 5,28,126/- as unexplained expenditure. A.Y. 2009-10 relates to addition of Rs. 8,70,269/- as unexplained expenditure. Ground No. 4 for the A.Y. 2011-12 relates to addition of Rs. 24,90,000/- as unexplained expenditure. 10.1 During the course of search and seizure

M/S AJAY KUMAR SOOD ENGINEERS & CONTRACTORS,SHIMLA vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

The appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

68,805/- as unexplained expenditure. A.Y. 2008-09 relates to addition of Rs. 5,28,126/- as unexplained expenditure. A.Y. 2009-10 relates to addition of Rs. 8,70,269/- as unexplained expenditure. Ground No. 4 for the A.Y. 2011-12 relates to addition of Rs. 24,90,000/- as unexplained expenditure. 10.1 During the course of search and seizure

SH. AJAY GOEL,SHIMLA vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

The appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

68,805/- as unexplained expenditure. A.Y. 2008-09 relates to addition of Rs. 5,28,126/- as unexplained expenditure. A.Y. 2009-10 relates to addition of Rs. 8,70,269/- as unexplained expenditure. Ground No. 4 for the A.Y. 2011-12 relates to addition of Rs. 24,90,000/- as unexplained expenditure. 10.1 During the course of search and seizure

M/S AJAY KUMAR SOOD ENGINEERS & CONTRACTORS,SHIMLA vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

The appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

68,805/- as unexplained expenditure. A.Y. 2008-09 relates to addition of Rs. 5,28,126/- as unexplained expenditure. A.Y. 2009-10 relates to addition of Rs. 8,70,269/- as unexplained expenditure. Ground No. 4 for the A.Y. 2011-12 relates to addition of Rs. 24,90,000/- as unexplained expenditure. 10.1 During the course of search and seizure

M/S AJAY KUMAR SOOD ENGINEERS & CONTRACTORS,SHIMLA vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

The appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

68,805/- as unexplained expenditure. A.Y. 2008-09 relates to addition of Rs. 5,28,126/- as unexplained expenditure. A.Y. 2009-10 relates to addition of Rs. 8,70,269/- as unexplained expenditure. Ground No. 4 for the A.Y. 2011-12 relates to addition of Rs. 24,90,000/- as unexplained expenditure. 10.1 During the course of search and seizure

DCIT, LUDHIANA vs. M/S MARSHAL MACHINES PVT. LTD., LUDHIANA

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2013-14

68. This judgment cannot be applied to the assessee since the assessee has made the surrender by specifying the Heads which are all business heads and the surrender was duly accepted by the department and the Tax on the Income was also charged on the Income which is clear from the surrender letter reproduced on page 4 of the Assessment

M/S K.K. APPARELS,LUDHIANA vs. ACIT, SOLAN

The appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sanjay Garg

section 80IB claimed at 100% resulting in an addition of Rs. 1,28,89,273/- without any independent reasoning which is arbitrary and unjustified. 3. That the order of Commissioner of Income tax(Appeals) is erroneous, arbitrary, opposed to the facts of the case and is unsustainable in law. 3. The appeal is barred by long limitation period

ACIT, LUDHIANA vs. M/S VARDHMAN TEXTILES LTD., LUDHIANA

In the result appeals of the Assessee and the Revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2002-03

68,698/- Duty b) Export 1,01,28,889/- 6,87,98,501/- 24,02,439/- Turnover of Trading goods 6. (i) That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on the facts while not increasing profits of business eligible for deduction u/s 80HHC by 10% of interest received. (ii) That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred

M/S VARDHMAN TEXTILES LTD.,,LUDHIANA vs. ADDL. CIT,, LUDHIANA

In the result appeals of the Assessee and the Revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2002-03

68,698/- Duty b) Export 1,01,28,889/- 6,87,98,501/- 24,02,439/- Turnover of Trading goods 6. (i) That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on the facts while not increasing profits of business eligible for deduction u/s 80HHC by 10% of interest received. (ii) That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred

ACIT,, LUDHIANA vs. M/S VARDHMAN TEXTILES LTD.,, LUDHIANA

In the result appeals of the Assessee and the Revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2002-03

68,698/- Duty b) Export 1,01,28,889/- 6,87,98,501/- 24,02,439/- Turnover of Trading goods 6. (i) That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on the facts while not increasing profits of business eligible for deduction u/s 80HHC by 10% of interest received. (ii) That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred

M/S VARDHMAN TEXTILES LTD.,LUDHIANA vs. ACIT, LUDHIANA

In the result appeals of the Assessee and the Revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2002-03

68,698/- Duty b) Export 1,01,28,889/- 6,87,98,501/- 24,02,439/- Turnover of Trading goods 6. (i) That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on the facts while not increasing profits of business eligible for deduction u/s 80HHC by 10% of interest received. (ii) That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred

ACIT, LUDHIANA vs. VARDHMAN TEXTILES LTD., LUDHIANA

In the result appeals of the Assessee and the Revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2002-03

68,698/- Duty b) Export 1,01,28,889/- 6,87,98,501/- 24,02,439/- Turnover of Trading goods 6. (i) That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on the facts while not increasing profits of business eligible for deduction u/s 80HHC by 10% of interest received. (ii) That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred