DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. PARAMJIT SINGH, MOHALI

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

50 Taxmaun.com 200 {Madras} In the above referred case, during the course of search conducted under section 132 in the business premises and the residential premises of the father of the assessee, certain amount of cash books of account and documents in respect of the assessee were seized. The AO issued notices to the assessee filed the return

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. JASWANT KAUR, MOHALI

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

50 Taxmaun.com 200 {Madras} In the above referred case, during the course of search conducted under section 132 in the business premises and the residential premises of the father of the assessee, certain amount of cash books of account and documents in respect of the assessee were seized. The AO issued notices to the assessee filed the return

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. PARAMJIT SINGH, MOHALI

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

50 Taxmaun.com 200 {Madras} In the above referred case, during the course of search conducted under section 132 in the business premises and the residential premises of the father of the assessee, certain amount of cash books of account and documents in respect of the assessee were seized. The AO issued notices to the assessee filed the return

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. KULWANT SINGH, MOHALI

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

50 Taxmaun.com 200 {Madras} In the above referred case, during the course of search conducted under section 132 in the business premises and the residential premises of the father of the assessee, certain amount of cash books of account and documents in respect of the assessee were seized. The AO issued notices to the assessee filed the return

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. KULWANT SINGH, MOHALI

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

50 Taxmaun.com 200 {Madras} In the above referred case, during the course of search conducted under section 132 in the business premises and the residential premises of the father of the assessee, certain amount of cash books of account and documents in respect of the assessee were seized. The AO issued notices to the assessee filed the return

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. JASWANT KAUR, MOHALI

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

50 Taxmaun.com 200 {Madras} In the above referred case, during the course of search conducted under section 132 in the business premises and the residential premises of the father of the assessee, certain amount of cash books of account and documents in respect of the assessee were seized. The AO issued notices to the assessee filed the return

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. MANJIT KAUR, CHANDIGARH

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

50 Taxmaun.com 200 {Madras} In the above referred case, during the course of search conducted under section 132 in the business premises and the residential premises of the father of the assessee, certain amount of cash books of account and documents in respect of the assessee were seized. The AO issued notices to the assessee filed the return

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

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

50,680/- by making an addition of Rs. 1,36,18,520/- as normal business income and Rs. 42,04,640/- under section 69C of the Act and Rs. 12,46,878/- under section 69 of the Act. 2.1 Subsequently, the assessment records were called for and examined by the Ld. PCIT(C) and it was observed that

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.

section 115BBE of the Act as the assessee has used the undisclosed sources of income for the construction of building premise.” 13. We have also perused the Ld. CIT(A) impugned order dt. 20/01/2023 and in particular we have noted the following paragraphs: “These grounds relate to charging by the AO of the surrendered income of Rs. 38 lacs

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 there should be a credit entry in the books of accounts whereas in the Section 69 where may not be an entry in the books of accounts." In the case of Roshan Di Hatti vs. CIT [1977] 107 ITR 938, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that "the onus of proving the source of some of money found

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

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.

50,10,581 4 Amount received during the year and repaid during the same year as per copy of account pages 11 to 12 of the paper book. "Our Submission: The assessee during the assessment proceedings filed following documents before the Ld. AO that duly proves all three elements of section 68

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

50,000/- made by the AO under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by treating the share

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

50,000/- made by the AO under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by treating the share

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

50,000/- made by the AO under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by treating the share

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

50,000/- made by the AO under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by treating the share

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

50,000/- made by the AO under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by treating the share

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

50,000/- made by the AO under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by treating the share