DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. KULWANT SINGH, MOHALI

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

68, 69A, 69B, 69C and 69D can be misused by the assessees to circumvent the ‘Voluntary ITA Nos.41 to 44, 387, 45 to 54/Chd/17 & CO 16-to 30-Chd-2018- Shri Kulwant Singh & Others, Mohali 32 Disclosure Scheme’ and to get their income into rotation / accounted for by paying 30% tax and declaring the same under the aforesaid sections

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. JASWANT KAUR, MOHALI

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

68, 69A, 69B, 69C and 69D can be misused by the assessees to circumvent the ‘Voluntary ITA Nos.41 to 44, 387, 45 to 54/Chd/17 & CO 16-to 30-Chd-2018- Shri Kulwant Singh & Others, Mohali 32 Disclosure Scheme’ and to get their income into rotation / accounted for by paying 30% tax and declaring the same under the aforesaid sections

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. MANJIT KAUR, CHANDIGARH

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

68, 69A, 69B, 69C and 69D can be misused by the assessees to circumvent the ‘Voluntary ITA Nos.41 to 44, 387, 45 to 54/Chd/17 & CO 16-to 30-Chd-2018- Shri Kulwant Singh & Others, Mohali 32 Disclosure Scheme’ and to get their income into rotation / accounted for by paying 30% tax and declaring the same under the aforesaid sections

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. KULWANT SINGH, MOHALI

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

68, 69A, 69B, 69C and 69D can be misused by the assessees to circumvent the ‘Voluntary ITA Nos.41 to 44, 387, 45 to 54/Chd/17 & CO 16-to 30-Chd-2018- Shri Kulwant Singh & Others, Mohali 32 Disclosure Scheme’ and to get their income into rotation / accounted for by paying 30% tax and declaring the same under the aforesaid sections

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. JASWANT KAUR, MOHALI

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

68, 69A, 69B, 69C and 69D can be misused by the assessees to circumvent the ‘Voluntary ITA Nos.41 to 44, 387, 45 to 54/Chd/17 & CO 16-to 30-Chd-2018- Shri Kulwant Singh & Others, Mohali 32 Disclosure Scheme’ and to get their income into rotation / accounted for by paying 30% tax and declaring the same under the aforesaid sections

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 Act is not ITA 455/CHD/2023 & C.O. 2/CHD/2023 A.Y. 2018-19 25 sustainable in the eyes of law and same is hereby deleted. Grounds of Appeal No. 6 to 9 are allowed. 20. The ld. CIT(A) relied on the following case laws : i) CIT Vs Orissa Corporation Ltd. ii) CIT Vs Sushila Devi Khadaria

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

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

67,816/-. 6. While passing the assessment order, the AO made an addition of Rs. 32,50,000/- under Section 68

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 of the Act. The following are the above Judgments: i. P. Refinery (P) Ltd. vs. ACIT [2015] 174 TTJ 41 (Chandigarh ITAT) ii. Principal CIT vs. N. C. Cables Ltd. [2017] 98 CCH 10 (Delhi) iii. CIT vs. Shokeen Properties (P) Ltd. [2015] 92 CCH 67

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 of the Act. The following are the above Judgments: i. P. Refinery (P) Ltd. vs. ACIT [2015] 174 TTJ 41 (Chandigarh ITAT) ii. Principal CIT vs. N. C. Cables Ltd. [2017] 98 CCH 10 (Delhi) iii. CIT vs. Shokeen Properties (P) Ltd. [2015] 92 CCH 67

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 of the Act. The following are the above Judgments: i. P. Refinery (P) Ltd. vs. ACIT [2015] 174 TTJ 41 (Chandigarh ITAT) ii. Principal CIT vs. N. C. Cables Ltd. [2017] 98 CCH 10 (Delhi) iii. CIT vs. Shokeen Properties (P) Ltd. [2015] 92 CCH 67

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 of the Act. The following are the above Judgments: i. P. Refinery (P) Ltd. vs. ACIT [2015] 174 TTJ 41 (Chandigarh ITAT) ii. Principal CIT vs. N. C. Cables Ltd. [2017] 98 CCH 10 (Delhi) iii. CIT vs. Shokeen Properties (P) Ltd. [2015] 92 CCH 67

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 of the Act. The following are the above Judgments: i. P. Refinery (P) Ltd. vs. ACIT [2015] 174 TTJ 41 (Chandigarh ITAT) ii. Principal CIT vs. N. C. Cables Ltd. [2017] 98 CCH 10 (Delhi) iii. CIT vs. Shokeen Properties (P) Ltd. [2015] 92 CCH 67

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 of the Act. The following are the above Judgments: i. P. Refinery (P) Ltd. vs. ACIT [2015] 174 TTJ 41 (Chandigarh ITAT) ii. Principal CIT vs. N. C. Cables Ltd. [2017] 98 CCH 10 (Delhi) iii. CIT vs. Shokeen Properties (P) Ltd. [2015] 92 CCH 67

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)

67,58,700/- 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

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 appellant is required to provide explanation regarding the nature and source of the amount received. Sh. Gagan Suri has admitted before the Assessing Officer that money was paid to the appellant and the same was given by means of RTGS from his bank account. The transaction is through the banking channels. As regards the source

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 of the Income tax Act.” 11 28. Briefly the facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income on 30/11/2014 declaring total income of Rs. 21,87,640/- which was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS for the reason that there were large increase in sundry creditors against reduction in business income as compared

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 of the Income tax Act.” 11 28. Briefly the facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income on 30/11/2014 declaring total income of Rs. 21,87,640/- which was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS for the reason that there were large increase in sundry creditors against reduction in business income as compared