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)

68, where there is a credit in the books of accounts and thus a prima facie evidence against the assessee regarding the receipt of money which the assessee is required to rebut and offer necessary explanation, for the provisions of Section 69 to be attracted in the instant case, there has to be a finding by the AO basis

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

68 or 69A, excess stock is covered u/s 69 or 69B, construction of Shed/Godown is covered u/s 69B or 69C and advances made to Sundry Parties is covered u/s 69, 69B or 69D is like an open ended hypothesis which is not supported by any specific finding that the matter shall fall under which of the specific sections

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

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

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)

68,63,786/- u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 with respect to cash withdrawals without any finding doubting the source of funds withdrawn. 3. That under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (Appeals) had erred in upholding the order of the Ld. AO making an addition u/s 69A based on surmises and conjectures

RAJIV GOYAL, PATIALA,PATIALA, PUNJAB vs. JAO ITO WARD-3, PATIALA, PATIALA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: the CIT(A) have not been considered properly.

section 68 stands prove and no addition is called for. SR. No. NAME OF THE LENDER AMOUNT 1. M/s Suraj Bhan and Bros HUF Received Repaid (PAN AACHV0222P) 10,00,000/- 40

INCOME TAX OFFICER, CHANDIGARH vs. SANBIR SINGH, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

40,000/-, being security of return of loan. "These documents do not prove the identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of the transactions. In the absence of the requirement, as explained above, and copy of Income-tax return etc. Such unexplained cash credits are income taxable under the provisions of section 68

ACIT -CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,, LUDHIANA vs. M/S OSWAL TRENDS PVT. LTD., LUDHIANA

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Krinwant Sahay

Section 68 of the Act, introduced by the Finance Act, 2012 with effect from 01.04.2013 being prospective in nature is not applicable in the preceding years. The issue and the law thereupon have already been discussed above. In view of this, impugned addition of Rs. 1,10,00,000/-is not sustainable. The order of the CIT(A) deleting

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE -1,, LUDHIANA vs. M/S OSWAL APPARELS PVT. LTD., LUDHIANA

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Krinwant Sahay

Section 68 of the Act, introduced by the Finance Act, 2012 with effect from 01.04.2013 being prospective in nature is not applicable in the preceding years. The issue and the law thereupon have already been discussed above. In view of this, impugned addition of Rs. 1,10,00,000/-is not sustainable. The order of the CIT(A) deleting

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE -1,, LUDHIANA vs. M/S OSWAL APPARELS PVT. LTD., LUDHIANA

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Krinwant Sahay

Section 68 of the Act, introduced by the Finance Act, 2012 with effect from 01.04.2013 being prospective in nature is not applicable in the preceding years. The issue and the law thereupon have already been discussed above. In view of this, impugned addition of Rs. 1,10,00,000/-is not sustainable. The order of the CIT(A) deleting

ACIT -CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,, LUDHIANA vs. M/S OSWAL TRENDS PVT. LTD., LUDHIANA

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Krinwant Sahay

Section 68 of the Act, introduced by the Finance Act, 2012 with effect from 01.04.2013 being prospective in nature is not applicable in the preceding years. The issue and the law thereupon have already been discussed above. In view of this, impugned addition of Rs. 1,10,00,000/-is not sustainable. The order of the CIT(A) deleting

M/S OSWAL TREND (P) LTD.,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, C. C.-1, LUDHIANA

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Krinwant Sahay

Section 68 of the Act, introduced by the Finance Act, 2012 with effect from 01.04.2013 being prospective in nature is not applicable in the preceding years. The issue and the law thereupon have already been discussed above. In view of this, impugned addition of Rs. 1,10,00,000/-is not sustainable. The order of the CIT(A) deleting

M/S OSWAL APPARELS PVT. LTD.,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, C.C.- 1, LUDHIANA

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Krinwant Sahay

Section 68 of the Act, introduced by the Finance Act, 2012 with effect from 01.04.2013 being prospective in nature is not applicable in the preceding years. The issue and the law thereupon have already been discussed above. In view of this, impugned addition of Rs. 1,10,00,000/-is not sustainable. The order of the CIT(A) deleting

M/S JASHAN FINLEASE LTD.,KHANNA vs. DCIT, CC-1, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

68 or 69A, excess stock is covered u/s 69 or 69B, construction of Shed/Godown is covered u/s 69B or 69C and advances made to Sundry Parties is covered u/s 69, 69B or 69D is like an open ended hypothesis which is not supported by any specific finding that the matter shall fall under which of the specific sections

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

68 in this regard and reliance was also placed on the following decisions in support of the contention that under section 68of the Act addition can be made only in respect of advances received in the year itself and not that received in earlier years. •Dy. CIT v. Amod Petrochem

SAHIL SINGLA,CHANDIGARH vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC-2, CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

40,00,000/-, to be unexplained cash credit of the assessee under section 68 of the Act. 15. Apropos

RAV SHARAN SINGH,PATIALA vs. ACIT, C.C., PATIALA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

68 or 69A, excess stock is covered u/s 69 or 69B, construction of Shed/Godown is covered u/s 69B or 69C and advances made to Sundry Parties is covered u/s 69, 69B or 69D is like an open ended hypothesis which is not supported by any specific finding that the matter shall fall under which of the specific sections

SH. SANDEEP KUMAR,LUDHIANA vs. ITO, WARD-4, KHANNA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

40 lacs, his case fell under the provision of section 44AF and as such, he was not required to maintain the books of account. And further as the income of the assessee was less than the exemption limit of Rs. 1,60,000/-, he was not required to file the return of income. It was further explained that addition

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

section 68 of the Act, alongwith unaccounted commission expenditure @ 6.5% of the total LTCG of the year for arranging those entries. The A.O. made the addition of Rs. 42,46,375/- in the following manner: Total Sale proceeds u/s 68 Rs. 40

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

section 68 of the Act, alongwith unaccounted commission expenditure @ 6.5% of the total LTCG of the year for arranging those entries. The A.O. made the addition of Rs. 42,46,375/- in the following manner: Total Sale proceeds u/s 68 Rs. 40