DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. KULWANT SINGH, MOHALI

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

68, 69A, 69B, 69C and 69D can be misused by the assessees to circumvent the ‘Voluntary ITA Nos.41 to 44, 387, 45 to 54/Chd/17 & CO 16-to 30-Chd-2018- Shri Kulwant Singh & Others, Mohali 32 Disclosure Scheme’ and to get their income into rotation / accounted for by paying 30% tax and declaring the same under the aforesaid sections

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. PARAMJIT SINGH, MOHALI

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

68, 69A, 69B, 69C and 69D can be misused by the assessees to circumvent the ‘Voluntary ITA Nos.41 to 44, 387, 45 to 54/Chd/17 & CO 16-to 30-Chd-2018- Shri Kulwant Singh & Others, Mohali 32 Disclosure Scheme’ and to get their income into rotation / accounted for by paying 30% tax and declaring the same under the aforesaid sections

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. PARAMJIT SINGH, MOHALI

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

68, 69A, 69B, 69C and 69D can be misused by the assessees to circumvent the ‘Voluntary ITA Nos.41 to 44, 387, 45 to 54/Chd/17 & CO 16-to 30-Chd-2018- Shri Kulwant Singh & Others, Mohali 32 Disclosure Scheme’ and to get their income into rotation / accounted for by paying 30% tax and declaring the same under the aforesaid sections

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. MANJIT KAUR, CHANDIGARH

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

68, 69A, 69B, 69C and 69D can be misused by the assessees to circumvent the ‘Voluntary ITA Nos.41 to 44, 387, 45 to 54/Chd/17 & CO 16-to 30-Chd-2018- Shri Kulwant Singh & Others, Mohali 32 Disclosure Scheme’ and to get their income into rotation / accounted for by paying 30% tax and declaring the same under the aforesaid sections

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. JASWANT KAUR, MOHALI

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

68, 69A, 69B, 69C and 69D can be misused by the assessees to circumvent the ‘Voluntary ITA Nos.41 to 44, 387, 45 to 54/Chd/17 & CO 16-to 30-Chd-2018- Shri Kulwant Singh & Others, Mohali 32 Disclosure Scheme’ and to get their income into rotation / accounted for by paying 30% tax and declaring the same under the aforesaid sections

M/S SATWANT AGRO ENGINEERS,BHAWANIGARH vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, PATIALA

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

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

section 69 as assessed by Assessing Officer. The surrendered amount is neither covered u/s 68 nor u/s 69 of Income Tax Act 1961. 4

INCOME TAX OFFICER, PARWANOO vs. DEEPAK KUMAR, NAHAN

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

68, section 69, section 69A, section 69B, section 69C or section 69D of the Act or so determined by the Assessing Officer, then income tax has to be calculated as so provided under such section and the same, being special rate of tax shall supersede the rate of tax as applicable otherwise. Therefore, where

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

68, 69, 69A, 69B, 69C or 69D reflected in the return of income furnished under section 139 of the Act. However, in the present case no such income was reflected in the return filed under section 139 of the Act rather the income was declared in the return filed under section 153A of the Act after

ANUPAM,BARNALA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BARNALA

In the result, Assessee’s appeal is allowed

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

4] Inserted vide Finance Act, 2018, with retrospective effect from 1-4- 2017. A plain reading of the aforesaid law would reveal that provisions of Section 115BBE can be applied only under the following circumstances:- i) The assesse has income referred to in section 68

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

4. That provisions of section 68, 69, 69A, 69B and 69C, 72 and 115BBE of the IT. Act, 1961 have

M/S AGYA RAM MANOHAR LAL,KHANNA vs. PR.CIT(CENTRAL), LUDHIANA

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

68, section 69, section 69A, section 69B, section 69C or section 69D, if such income is not covered under clause (a) the income-tax payable shall be the aggregate of- (i) the amount of income-tax calculated on the income referred to in clause(a) and clause (b), at the rate of sixty per cent

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.

4 makes the 'total income referred to in the principal charging section. Section 14 classifies the heads of income while sections 15 to 59 provide for its quantification. Chapter VI of the Income tax Act provides for aggregation of income and set off or carry forward of loss. Thus Chapter VI is in two parts; first part

SH. KRISHAN KUMAR,KHANNA vs. DCIT, CC-1, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

4 "Tax on income referred to in section 68 or section 69 or section 69A or section

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

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

4) of the Act at the time of search under section 132 of the Act dated 13th September 2012. 26. It was further observed by the AO that similar modus operandi was used in respect of the remaining 9 companies with respect of which the assessee has shown bogus long-term capital gain. The list of such companies

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

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

4) of the Act at the time of search under section 132 of the Act dated 13th September 2012. 26. It was further observed by the AO that similar modus operandi was used in respect of the remaining 9 companies with respect of which the assessee has shown bogus long-term capital gain. The list of such companies

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

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

4) of the Act at the time of search under section 132 of the Act dated 13th September 2012. 26. It was further observed by the AO that similar modus operandi was used in respect of the remaining 9 companies with respect of which the assessee has shown bogus long-term capital gain. The list of such companies

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

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

4) of the Act at the time of search under section 132 of the Act dated 13th September 2012. 26. It was further observed by the AO that similar modus operandi was used in respect of the remaining 9 companies with respect of which the assessee has shown bogus long-term capital gain. The list of such companies

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

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

4) of the Act at the time of search under section 132 of the Act dated 13th September 2012. 26. It was further observed by the AO that similar modus operandi was used in respect of the remaining 9 companies with respect of which the assessee has shown bogus long-term capital gain. The list of such companies