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)

68 of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the sum of Rs.35,00,000/- is treated as unexplained ;ash credit and added to the total income of the assessee. Accordingly tax on such unexplained income is computed as per the provisions of section 115BBE of the Act. ITA 455/CHD/2023 & C.O. 2/CHD/2023 A.Y. 2018-19 13 14.1 The Department

ACIT-CC-1, CHANDIGARH vs. M/S BAJWA DEVELOPERS LTD., KHARAR

Bench: The Cit(A)(Central), Gurgaon. The Ld. Cit(A) Vide Order, Dated 26.04.2019 Sustained The Penalty Of Rs. 1,58,68,413/-, Against That Order, The Assessee Has Filed This Appeal Before The 2

68,413/- is undisclosed income as per provisions of section 271 AAA. 3. The learned CIT (A) has erred in law and facts in confirming penalty levied under section 271 AAA on an amount of Rs. 1,58

ACIT,CC-1, CHANDIGARH vs. M/S BAJWA DEVELOPERS LTD., KHARAR

Bench: The Cit(A)(Central), Gurgaon. The Ld. Cit(A) Vide Order, Dated 26.04.2019 Sustained The Penalty Of Rs. 1,58,68,413/-, Against That Order, The Assessee Has Filed This Appeal Before The 2

68,413/- is undisclosed income as per provisions of section 271 AAA. 3. The learned CIT (A) has erred in law and facts in confirming penalty levied under section 271 AAA on an amount of Rs. 1,58

M/S BAJWA DEVELOPERS LTD.,KHARAR vs. DCIT, CC-II, CHANDIGARH

Bench: The Cit(A)(Central), Gurgaon. The Ld. Cit(A) Vide Order, Dated 26.04.2019 Sustained The Penalty Of Rs. 1,58,68,413/-, Against That Order, The Assessee Has Filed This Appeal Before The 2

68,413/- is undisclosed income as per provisions of section 271 AAA. 3. The learned CIT (A) has erred in law and facts in confirming penalty levied under section 271 AAA on an amount of Rs. 1,58

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

58 e Oswal Trends (P) Ltd. maintained with the ICICI Bank for the period 01.07.2012 to 31.07.2012 f Copy of Account of M/s Oswal Trends (P) Ltd. in the 59 books of M/s Navratan Distributors Private Limited for the F/Y 2011-2012 g Copy of Account of M/s Oswal Trends (P) Ltd. in the 60 books of M/s Navratan Distributors

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

58 e Oswal Trends (P) Ltd. maintained with the ICICI Bank for the period 01.07.2012 to 31.07.2012 f Copy of Account of M/s Oswal Trends (P) Ltd. in the 59 books of M/s Navratan Distributors Private Limited for the F/Y 2011-2012 g Copy of Account of M/s Oswal Trends (P) Ltd. in the 60 books of M/s Navratan Distributors

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

58 e Oswal Trends (P) Ltd. maintained with the ICICI Bank for the period 01.07.2012 to 31.07.2012 f Copy of Account of M/s Oswal Trends (P) Ltd. in the 59 books of M/s Navratan Distributors Private Limited for the F/Y 2011-2012 g Copy of Account of M/s Oswal Trends (P) Ltd. in the 60 books of M/s Navratan Distributors

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

58 e Oswal Trends (P) Ltd. maintained with the ICICI Bank for the period 01.07.2012 to 31.07.2012 f Copy of Account of M/s Oswal Trends (P) Ltd. in the 59 books of M/s Navratan Distributors Private Limited for the F/Y 2011-2012 g Copy of Account of M/s Oswal Trends (P) Ltd. in the 60 books of M/s Navratan Distributors

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

58 e Oswal Trends (P) Ltd. maintained with the ICICI Bank for the period 01.07.2012 to 31.07.2012 f Copy of Account of M/s Oswal Trends (P) Ltd. in the 59 books of M/s Navratan Distributors Private Limited for the F/Y 2011-2012 g Copy of Account of M/s Oswal Trends (P) Ltd. in the 60 books of M/s Navratan Distributors

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

58 e Oswal Trends (P) Ltd. maintained with the ICICI Bank for the period 01.07.2012 to 31.07.2012 f Copy of Account of M/s Oswal Trends (P) Ltd. in the 59 books of M/s Navratan Distributors Private Limited for the F/Y 2011-2012 g Copy of Account of M/s Oswal Trends (P) Ltd. in the 60 books of M/s Navratan Distributors

SHRI BALRAM KRISHAN,CHANDIGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

section 153C, for the sake of ready reference, are reproduced as under: 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68

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)

58,700/- including the surrendered income. Thereafter the case of the assessee was taken up under compulsory scrutiny and notice under section 143(2) and 142(1) were issued alongwith questionnaire. 4. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO issued a specific query relating to income surrendered during the course of survey. It was stated

M/S GOLD STAR AMCO STEELS PVT. LTD.,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, C-1, LUDHIANA

In the results, the book results as duly audited need to be accepted and the addition so made is hereby directed to be deleted

Bench: 30Th Of September 2013 And, As Such, Framing Of Assessment By The Assessing Officer Without Observing Mandatory

58,572/- as against the returned loss of Rs. 2,46,67,816/-. 6. While passing the assessment order, the AO made an addition of Rs. 32,50,000/- under Section 68

DCIT, C-1, LUDHIANA vs. M/S GOLD STAR AMCO STEELS PVT. LTD., LUDHIANA

In the results, the book results as duly audited need to be accepted and the addition so made is hereby directed to be deleted

Bench: 30Th Of September 2013 And, As Such, Framing Of Assessment By The Assessing Officer Without Observing Mandatory

58,572/- as against the returned loss of Rs. 2,46,67,816/-. 6. While passing the assessment order, the AO made an addition of Rs. 32,50,000/- under Section 68

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