SH. AMAR SINGH,JAGADHARI vs. ITO, YAMUNANAGAR

In the result, both the appeal of different assessees are allowed

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

68,000/- in cash, Rs. 16,77,625/- by cheque dated 15.03.2007 and Rs. 1,74,55,250/- by cheque from M/s Stepping Stone Buildhome Pvt. Ltd. Jaipur. The proceeds of the aforesaid cheques were realized by assessee in March, 2007 and August, 2008 respectively. The assessee offered the part sale consideration of Rs. 17,45,625/- for capital gains

SH. JAI RAM,JAGADHARI vs. ITO, YAMUNANAGAR

In the result, both the appeal of different assessees are allowed

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

68,000/- in cash, Rs. 16,77,625/- by cheque dated 15.03.2007 and Rs. 1,74,55,250/- by cheque from M/s Stepping Stone Buildhome Pvt. Ltd. Jaipur. The proceeds of the aforesaid cheques were realized by assessee in March, 2007 and August, 2008 respectively. The assessee offered the part sale consideration of Rs. 17,45,625/- for capital gains

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

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)

Section 133(6) of the Act to Shri Gaganpreet Singh, to ITA 455/CHD/2023 & C.O. 2/CHD/2023 A.Y. 2018-19 43 make any further enquiry. It was not disputed that the amounts as above, totaling to Rs.5 lacs had been repaid by the assessee to Shri Gaganpreet Singh through cheque, as above. Again, this was much before the issuance of notice

DEVI DAYAL,KAITHAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 , KAITHAL

In the result, appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 899/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09 Shri Devi Dayal, Vs The Ito, Pundri Anaj Mandi, Ward – 1, Kaithal-Haryana 136026. Kaithal. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aajpd5851H अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, Ca & Ms. Shruti Khandelwal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Manav Bansal, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 30.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.09.2025

Sections 2(47)(ii), (v) and (vi) of the Income Tax Act. He further held that, in the case of an assessee owning a 1000 square yards plot, the full value of consideration would be Rs.3.675 crores less cost of acquisition of Rs.12,81,724/-. The long term capital gain was, therefore, stated to be Rs.3,54,68

SWARN GANGA JEWELLERS,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 4(1) NOW DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: This Tribunal Being Aggrieved By An Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/1045180258(1) For A.Y. 2017-18 Dt. 05/09/2022 Which Is Hereinafter Referred To As The “Impugned Order”. The Impugned Order Is Passed By Cit(A) In Terms Of Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. Factual Matrix 2. That Survey U/S 133A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Was Conducted On The Business Premises Of The Assessee On 06/09/2016. The Assessee Surrendered A Sum Of Rs. 50,00,000/- During The Survey & Paid Tax Thereon. The Return Of Income Was Filed On 01/11/2017 Declaring A Total Income Of Rs. 89,48,260/-. Thereafter The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny Under Compulsory Scrutiny Guidelines & Notice Under Section 143(2) Of The Act Was Issued On 11/09/2018. The Assessment Was Finalised Vide Order Dt. 23/12/2019 Whereby Addition Of Rs. 95,70,882/- Was Made U/S 68 R.W..S 115Bbe Of The Act.

68 r.w..s 115BBE of the Act. 3. During the period commencing from 09/11/2016 to 31/12/2016 (demonetisation period) the assessee had deposited sum of Rs. 1,18,88,500/- in their bank account with HDFC Bank. During the course of the proceedings, the assessee was asked to explain the source of such huge cash deposit post demonetisation announcement. The Assessee

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

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)

Section 68 of the Act. 19.1 The assessee maintains that the Learned Assessing Officer has considered the Bank Passbook/Statements as books of account, then, no addition can be made u/s 69 of the Act, as all the investments were accounted for and made through the regular Bank a/c of the appellant and if the Assessing Officer assents to/abides

ITO, W-1(3), CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. RENU ANAND, CHANDIGARH

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

section 68, the following conditions have to be satisfied:- 7 1. The Identify of the Creditor 2. The capacity of the creditor to advance money 3. Genuineness of transaction. The assessee has tried to explain the creditworthiness of the creditor/loaner Sh. Gagan Suri, proprietor of M/s Yathuri Associates from whom theunsecured loan of Rs.7,12,50,000/- have been

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. 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. 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

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

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)

section 68 of the Act and addition was made in the hands of the assessee, which, on appeal, has been confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) and against which, the assessee is in appeal before us. 46. During the course of hearing, the ld AR submitted that the assessee being involved in construction and sale of properties has agreed

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)

section 68 of the Act and addition was made in the hands of the assessee, which, on appeal, has been confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) and against which, the assessee is in appeal before us. 46. During the course of hearing, the ld AR submitted that the assessee being involved in construction and sale of properties has agreed