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

68 of the Act by ignoring the relevant specific facts and circumstances of the case and by relying on extraneous arguments and evidences, including in particular, circumstantial evidence, which has no bearing and applicability to the case. 3. That the Ld Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Gurgaon was not justified to uphold the action of the Ld. Assessing Officer

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

68 of the Act by ignoring the relevant specific facts and circumstances of the case and by relying on extraneous arguments and evidences, including in particular, circumstantial evidence, which has no bearing and applicability to the case. 3. That the Ld Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Gurgaon was not justified to uphold the action of the Ld. Assessing Officer

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

68 of the Act by ignoring the relevant specific facts and circumstances of the case and by relying on extraneous arguments and evidences, including in particular, circumstantial evidence, which has no bearing and applicability to the case. 3. That the Ld Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Gurgaon was not justified to uphold the action of the Ld. Assessing Officer

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

68 of the Act by ignoring the relevant specific facts and circumstances of the case and by relying on extraneous arguments and evidences, including in particular, circumstantial evidence, which has no bearing and applicability to the case. 3. That the Ld Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Gurgaon was not justified to uphold the action of the Ld. Assessing Officer

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

68 of the Act by ignoring the relevant specific facts and circumstances of the case and by relying on extraneous arguments and evidences, including in particular, circumstantial evidence, which has no bearing and applicability to the case. 3. That the Ld Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Gurgaon was not justified to uphold the action of the Ld. Assessing Officer

SH. NARESH CHAUHAN,SHIMLA vs. ACIT, CC-II, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the addition so made is hereby directed to be deleted and the ground of appeal is allowed

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

68 was reiterated by the AO and as against the returned income of Rs. 22,44,680/-, the assessed income was determined at Rs. 1,00,32,140/- which on appeal has been sustained by the Ld. CIT(A). 6. Against the said findings and direction, the assessee is again in appeal before us. 7. In Ground

SH. NARESH CHAUHAN,SHIMLA vs. DCIT, CC-II, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the addition so made is hereby directed to be deleted and the ground of appeal is allowed

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

68 was reiterated by the AO and as against the returned income of Rs. 22,44,680/-, the assessed income was determined at Rs. 1,00,32,140/- which on appeal has been sustained by the Ld. CIT(A). 6. Against the said findings and direction, the assessee is again in appeal before us. 7. In Ground

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, LUDHIANA vs. MALBROS INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD, FARIDKOT

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH (Vice President), SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

302)CIT(A)-5/Ldh/2019- 20 order dated 30.03.2024. 2. The only issue in this appeal of Revenue is as regards to the order of CIT(A) deleting the addition of unexplained cash credit of Rs.1.50 Cr added under Section 68

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

Bench: S/Shri N.K. Saini, Vice- & Rajpal Yadav, Vice-

section 132(4) of the Act after confronting various documents of incriminating In the cases of Shri Sanjay Singhal and Others Vs. DCIT, Chandigarh (9 Appeals) 49 nature and the statement recorded of various persons. Thus, the admission by the assessee in itself is a vital piece of evidence that the group of the assessee has generated huge bogus

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

Bench: S/Shri N.K. Saini, Vice- & Rajpal Yadav, Vice-

section 132(4) of the Act after confronting various documents of incriminating In the cases of Shri Sanjay Singhal and Others Vs. DCIT, Chandigarh (9 Appeals) 49 nature and the statement recorded of various persons. Thus, the admission by the assessee in itself is a vital piece of evidence that the group of the assessee has generated huge bogus

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

Bench: S/Shri N.K. Saini, Vice- & Rajpal Yadav, Vice-

section 132(4) of the Act after confronting various documents of incriminating In the cases of Shri Sanjay Singhal and Others Vs. DCIT, Chandigarh (9 Appeals) 49 nature and the statement recorded of various persons. Thus, the admission by the assessee in itself is a vital piece of evidence that the group of the assessee has generated huge bogus

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

Bench: S/Shri N.K. Saini, Vice- & Rajpal Yadav, Vice-

section 132(4) of the Act after confronting various documents of incriminating In the cases of Shri Sanjay Singhal and Others Vs. DCIT, Chandigarh (9 Appeals) 49 nature and the statement recorded of various persons. Thus, the admission by the assessee in itself is a vital piece of evidence that the group of the assessee has generated huge bogus

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

Bench: S/Shri N.K. Saini, Vice- & Rajpal Yadav, Vice-

section 132(4) of the Act after confronting various documents of incriminating In the cases of Shri Sanjay Singhal and Others Vs. DCIT, Chandigarh (9 Appeals) 49 nature and the statement recorded of various persons. Thus, the admission by the assessee in itself is a vital piece of evidence that the group of the assessee has generated huge bogus

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

Bench: S/Shri N.K. Saini, Vice- & Rajpal Yadav, Vice-

section 132(4) of the Act after confronting various documents of incriminating In the cases of Shri Sanjay Singhal and Others Vs. DCIT, Chandigarh (9 Appeals) 49 nature and the statement recorded of various persons. Thus, the admission by the assessee in itself is a vital piece of evidence that the group of the assessee has generated huge bogus

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

Bench: S/Shri N.K. Saini, Vice- & Rajpal Yadav, Vice-

section 132(4) of the Act after confronting various documents of incriminating In the cases of Shri Sanjay Singhal and Others Vs. DCIT, Chandigarh (9 Appeals) 49 nature and the statement recorded of various persons. Thus, the admission by the assessee in itself is a vital piece of evidence that the group of the assessee has generated huge bogus

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

Bench: S/Shri N.K. Saini, Vice- & Rajpal Yadav, Vice-

section 132(4) of the Act after confronting various documents of incriminating In the cases of Shri Sanjay Singhal and Others Vs. DCIT, Chandigarh (9 Appeals) 49 nature and the statement recorded of various persons. Thus, the admission by the assessee in itself is a vital piece of evidence that the group of the assessee has generated huge bogus

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

Bench: S/Shri N.K. Saini, Vice- & Rajpal Yadav, Vice-

section 132(4) of the Act after confronting various documents of incriminating In the cases of Shri Sanjay Singhal and Others Vs. DCIT, Chandigarh (9 Appeals) 49 nature and the statement recorded of various persons. Thus, the admission by the assessee in itself is a vital piece of evidence that the group of the assessee has generated huge bogus

SH. SURJIT SINGH,LUDHIANA vs. ITO, W-1(3), LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

section 68 of the Act. 7. Now the assessee is in appeal. 8. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions made before the authorities below and further submitted that the assessee explained the source of deposits in the bank account which was out of the withdrawal amounting to Rs. 16,56,500/- from the HDFC Bank, Ludhiana