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u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 with respect to cash withdrawals without any finding doubting the source of funds withdrawn. 3.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

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.” 11. Respectfully following the above decisions, which, in our view, are squarely applicable on the facts of the instant case, we find that the assessee has successfully discharged the burden of proof primarily casted upon it to explain the identity and creditworthiness of share applicant and genuineness of the share transactions and correctness of such details

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.” 11. Respectfully following the above decisions, which, in our view, are squarely applicable on the facts of the instant case, we find that the assessee has successfully discharged the burden of proof primarily casted upon it to explain the identity and creditworthiness of share applicant and genuineness of the share transactions and correctness of such details

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.” 11. Respectfully following the above decisions, which, in our view, are squarely applicable on the facts of the instant case, we find that the assessee has successfully discharged the burden of proof primarily casted upon it to explain the identity and creditworthiness of share applicant and genuineness of the share transactions and correctness of such details

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.” 11. Respectfully following the above decisions, which, in our view, are squarely applicable on the facts of the instant case, we find that the assessee has successfully discharged the burden of proof primarily casted upon it to explain the identity and creditworthiness of share applicant and genuineness of the share transactions and correctness of such details

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.” 11. Respectfully following the above decisions, which, in our view, are squarely applicable on the facts of the instant case, we find that the assessee has successfully discharged the burden of proof primarily casted upon it to explain the identity and creditworthiness of share applicant and genuineness of the share transactions and correctness of such details

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.” 11. Respectfully following the above decisions, which, in our view, are squarely applicable on the facts of the instant case, we find that the assessee has successfully discharged the burden of proof primarily casted upon it to explain the identity and creditworthiness of share applicant and genuineness of the share transactions and correctness of such details

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

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

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 2013 162,40,50,224.72 166,83,15000.00 March

SMT. ASHA GANDHI,LUDHIANA vs. ITO, W-II(1), LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

65,000/-is assessed under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 read with section 115BBE of the Income

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)

68 was reiterated by the AO and as against the returned income of Rs. 22,44,680/-, the assessed income was determined at Rs. 1,00,32,140/- which on appeal has been sustained by the Ld. CIT(A). 6. Against the said findings and direction, the assessee is again in appeal before us. 7. In Ground

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)

68 was reiterated by the AO and as against the returned income of Rs. 22,44,680/-, the assessed income was determined at Rs. 1,00,32,140/- which on appeal has been sustained by the Ld. CIT(A). 6. Against the said findings and direction, the assessee is again in appeal before us. 7. In Ground

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

68 of the Act. The reliance was placed on the following case laws: i. CIT Vs. N.R. Portfolio Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No. 1018,1019/2100 (Delhi) dt. 22/11/2013 ii. CIT Vs. Nova Prompters and Finlease (P) Ltd. (Del) reported at 342 ITR 169 iii. CIT Vs. Krishnaveni Ammal (Mad) reported at 158 ITR 826 iv. Madathi Brothers Vs. DCIT

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

68 of the Act. The reliance was placed on the following case laws: i. CIT Vs. N.R. Portfolio Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No. 1018,1019/2100 (Delhi) dt. 22/11/2013 ii. CIT Vs. Nova Prompters and Finlease (P) Ltd. (Del) reported at 342 ITR 169 iii. CIT Vs. Krishnaveni Ammal (Mad) reported at 158 ITR 826 iv. Madathi Brothers Vs. DCIT

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

68 of the Act. The reliance was placed on the following case laws: i. CIT Vs. N.R. Portfolio Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No. 1018,1019/2100 (Delhi) dt. 22/11/2013 ii. CIT Vs. Nova Prompters and Finlease (P) Ltd. (Del) reported at 342 ITR 169 iii. CIT Vs. Krishnaveni Ammal (Mad) reported at 158 ITR 826 iv. Madathi Brothers Vs. DCIT

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

68 of the Act. The reliance was placed on the following case laws: i. CIT Vs. N.R. Portfolio Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No. 1018,1019/2100 (Delhi) dt. 22/11/2013 ii. CIT Vs. Nova Prompters and Finlease (P) Ltd. (Del) reported at 342 ITR 169 iii. CIT Vs. Krishnaveni Ammal (Mad) reported at 158 ITR 826 iv. Madathi Brothers Vs. DCIT

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

68 of the Act. The reliance was placed on the following case laws: i. CIT Vs. N.R. Portfolio Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No. 1018,1019/2100 (Delhi) dt. 22/11/2013 ii. CIT Vs. Nova Prompters and Finlease (P) Ltd. (Del) reported at 342 ITR 169 iii. CIT Vs. Krishnaveni Ammal (Mad) reported at 158 ITR 826 iv. Madathi Brothers Vs. DCIT

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

68 of the Act. The reliance was placed on the following case laws: i. CIT Vs. N.R. Portfolio Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No. 1018,1019/2100 (Delhi) dt. 22/11/2013 ii. CIT Vs. Nova Prompters and Finlease (P) Ltd. (Del) reported at 342 ITR 169 iii. CIT Vs. Krishnaveni Ammal (Mad) reported at 158 ITR 826 iv. Madathi Brothers Vs. DCIT

SH. DIDAR SINGH,SIRHIND vs. ITO, WARD, SIRHIND

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N.K. Sainiassessment Year: 2010-11

65,000/- applying the provisions of Section 68 which are not attracted in the instant case which is arbitrary

RACHIT AGGARWAL (PROP.) ASHOK KUMAR GUPTA & CO.,LUDHIANA vs. ITO, WARD II(2), LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

section 68 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act on surmises and conjectures and ignoring the documents and details tax audit report submitted on record; 3. initiating proceedings u/s 271AAC of the Act; 4. charging interest u/s 234B, C and D of the Act. 3. The facts of the case are that the assessee deals in wholesale trade of karyana goods