SH. PARSHOTAM LAL,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-1, LUDHIANA

In the result, we upheld the addition totaling to Rs 18,31,800/- towards cash seized u/s 69A in A

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

section 115BBE of the income tax act at all. Infact, if an addition is attempted to be made under sec 68 to 69D of the Act, it must be appreciated that all of these are deeming provisions, wherein the burden of abuse of provisions is on the department. Incase such burden of proof is not discharged by the department

SH. PARSHOTAM LAL,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-1, LUDHIANA

In the result, we upheld the addition totaling to Rs 18,31,800/- towards cash seized u/s 69A in A

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

section 115BBE of the income tax act at all. Infact, if an addition is attempted to be made under sec 68 to 69D of the Act, it must be appreciated that all of these are deeming provisions, wherein the burden of abuse of provisions is on the department. Incase such burden of proof is not discharged by the department

SH. PARSHOTAM LAL,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-1, LUDHIANA

In the result, we upheld the addition totaling to Rs 18,31,800/- towards cash seized u/s 69A in A

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

section 115BBE of the income tax act at all. Infact, if an addition is attempted to be made under sec 68 to 69D of the Act, it must be appreciated that all of these are deeming provisions, wherein the burden of abuse of provisions is on the department. Incase such burden of proof is not discharged by the department

SH. PARSHOTAM LAL,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-1, LUDHIANA

In the result, we upheld the addition totaling to Rs 18,31,800/- towards cash seized u/s 69A in A

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

section 115BBE of the income tax act at all. Infact, if an addition is attempted to be made under sec 68 to 69D of the Act, it must be appreciated that all of these are deeming provisions, wherein the burden of abuse of provisions is on the department. Incase such burden of proof is not discharged by the department

SH. PARSHOTAM LAL,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-1, LUDHIANA

In the result, we upheld the addition totaling to Rs 18,31,800/- towards cash seized u/s 69A in A

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

section 115BBE of the income tax act at all. Infact, if an addition is attempted to be made under sec 68 to 69D of the Act, it must be appreciated that all of these are deeming provisions, wherein the burden of abuse of provisions is on the department. Incase such burden of proof is not discharged by the department

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. CHANDIGARH HOUSING BOARD, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

68,743/-. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) where he pleaded that non-disclosure of the said interest income was under the bonafide belief that the said interest income was not the income of the assessee at all as the funds on which it accrued, was believed to be kept by it in the capacity