DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. KULWANT SINGH, MOHALI

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

48 to 50/CHD/2017) "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2008-09, 2010-11 & 2011-12 Sh. Paramjit Singh, The DCIT, Central Circle-1, बनाम H.N o.4197, Sector 68, Chandigarh Mohali "थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AEKPS5692A Appeal against the order of CIT(A)-3, Gurgaon dated 28.10.2016 "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee by : Sh. Pankaj Bhalla, CAs राज

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. MANJIT KAUR, CHANDIGARH

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

48 to 50/CHD/2017) "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2008-09, 2010-11 & 2011-12 Sh. Paramjit Singh, The DCIT, Central Circle-1, बनाम H.N o.4197, Sector 68, Chandigarh Mohali "थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AEKPS5692A Appeal against the order of CIT(A)-3, Gurgaon dated 28.10.2016 "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee by : Sh. Pankaj Bhalla, CAs राज

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. PARAMJIT SINGH, MOHALI

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

48 to 50/CHD/2017) "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2008-09, 2010-11 & 2011-12 Sh. Paramjit Singh, The DCIT, Central Circle-1, बनाम H.N o.4197, Sector 68, Chandigarh Mohali "थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AEKPS5692A Appeal against the order of CIT(A)-3, Gurgaon dated 28.10.2016 "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee by : Sh. Pankaj Bhalla, CAs राज

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. KULWANT SINGH, MOHALI

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

48 to 50/CHD/2017) "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2008-09, 2010-11 & 2011-12 Sh. Paramjit Singh, The DCIT, Central Circle-1, बनाम H.N o.4197, Sector 68, Chandigarh Mohali "थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AEKPS5692A Appeal against the order of CIT(A)-3, Gurgaon dated 28.10.2016 "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee by : Sh. Pankaj Bhalla, CAs राज

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. JASWANT KAUR, MOHALI

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

48 to 50/CHD/2017) "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2008-09, 2010-11 & 2011-12 Sh. Paramjit Singh, The DCIT, Central Circle-1, बनाम H.N o.4197, Sector 68, Chandigarh Mohali "थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AEKPS5692A Appeal against the order of CIT(A)-3, Gurgaon dated 28.10.2016 "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee by : Sh. Pankaj Bhalla, CAs राज

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.

68 r.w.s 115BBE of the Act. The character of Rs. 38,00,000/- so surrendered is changed from business income to unexplained investment by virtue of section 69B r.w.s 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 19. The letter of surrender dt. 17/09/2018 which are relied upon by both the authorities below unequivocally speaks of surrender

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 of the Act and computed the Tax liability under the provisions of the section 115BBE of the Act." 7.7 As regards, the charging of income tax @ 60% invoking the provisions of section 115BBE on the income declared by 175-Chd-2023– Shri Krishan Kumar, Khanna 18 the Assessee in its return of income. The Assessee has already

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

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

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.

48,260/-. Thereafter the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny under compulsory scrutiny guidelines and 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

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)

48,14,168.54 87,00,65,774.95 September2012 21,68,00,252.81 5,84,50,000.00 October 2012 26,22,00,112.36 24,62,00,000.00 November 2012 27,66,50,028.09 27,42,00,000.00 December 2012 37,65,42,968.54 38,52,00,028.09 January 2013 41,89,00,000.00 40,99,40,000.00 February

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

Section 68 of the Act the submissions of the assessee had been reproduced by the Ld. CIT(A) at page no. 124 to 154 of the assessment order, the same are reproduced verbatim as under: (1) The Appellant had, from time to time, invested in shares/share warrants (which were subsequently converted into equity shares) of various companies and which

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

Section 68 of the Act the submissions of the assessee had been reproduced by the Ld. CIT(A) at page no. 124 to 154 of the assessment order, the same are reproduced verbatim as under: (1) The Appellant had, from time to time, invested in shares/share warrants (which were subsequently converted into equity shares) of various companies and which

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

Section 68 of the Act the submissions of the assessee had been reproduced by the Ld. CIT(A) at page no. 124 to 154 of the assessment order, the same are reproduced verbatim as under: (1) The Appellant had, from time to time, invested in shares/share warrants (which were subsequently converted into equity shares) of various companies and which

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

Section 68 of the Act the submissions of the assessee had been reproduced by the Ld. CIT(A) at page no. 124 to 154 of the assessment order, the same are reproduced verbatim as under: (1) The Appellant had, from time to time, invested in shares/share warrants (which were subsequently converted into equity shares) of various companies and which

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

Section 68 of the Act the submissions of the assessee had been reproduced by the Ld. CIT(A) at page no. 124 to 154 of the assessment order, the same are reproduced verbatim as under: (1) The Appellant had, from time to time, invested in shares/share warrants (which were subsequently converted into equity shares) of various companies and which

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

Section 68 of the Act the submissions of the assessee had been reproduced by the Ld. CIT(A) at page no. 124 to 154 of the assessment order, the same are reproduced verbatim as under: (1) The Appellant had, from time to time, invested in shares/share warrants (which were subsequently converted into equity shares) of various companies and which