DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. KULWANT SINGH, MOHALI

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

68, section 69, section 69A, section 69B, section 69C or section 69D and reflected in the return

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. PARAMJIT SINGH, MOHALI

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

68, section 69, section 69A, section 69B, section 69C or section 69D and reflected in the return

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. KULWANT SINGH, MOHALI

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

68, section 69, section 69A, section 69B, section 69C or section 69D and reflected in the return

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. JASWANT KAUR, MOHALI

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

68, section 69, section 69A, section 69B, section 69C or section 69D and reflected in the return

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. JASWANT KAUR, MOHALI

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

68, section 69, section 69A, section 69B, section 69C or section 69D and reflected in the return

INCOME TAX OFFICER, PARWANOO vs. DEEPAK KUMAR, NAHAN

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

68, section 69, section 69A, section 69B, section 69C or section 69D of the Act in the order

ANUPAM,BARNALA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BARNALA

In the result, Assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

68 or section 69 or section 69A or section 69B or section 69C or section 69D

M/S FAMINA KNIT FABS,LUDHIANA vs. ACIT, C-3, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

68 or section 69 or section 69A or section 69B or section 69C or section 69D

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

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

68, section 69, section 69A, section 69B, section 69C or section 69D, the income-tax payable

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 section 69 or section 69A or section 69B or section 69C or section 69D

M/S SATWANT AGRO ENGINEERS,BHAWANIGARH vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, PATIALA

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

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

section 68, 69, 69A, 69B & 69C is not apparent from the impugned order. Merely stating that excess cash is clearly covered u/s 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

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, section 69, section 69A, section 69B, section 69C or section 69D, if such income

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, section 69, section 69A, section (a) 69B, section 69C or section 69D and reflected

RAJIV KUMAR GOYAL,DHURI vs. DCIT, CC-2, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee 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 Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Dated 03/02/2023 In Appeal No. 10850/2018-19/It/Cit(A)-5/Ldh/2021-22 For 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. 03/02/2023 Which Is Hereiafter Referred To As The Impugned Order. Factual Matrix 3. The Assessee Had For The Relevant Year I.E; A.Y. 2019-20 Was Also Engaged In The Same Business I.E; Manufacturing Of Pvc Pipes & Had Filed

68, section 69, section 69A, section 69B, section 69C or section 69D, if such income

SH. SUNIL KUMAR,SIRSA vs. PR. C.I.T., ROHTAK

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

68 or Section 69 or Section 69A or Section 69B or Section 69C or Section 69D

SH. SURENDER KUMAR,KAITHAL vs. PR. C.I.T., ROHTAK

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

68 or Section 69 or Section 69A or Section 69B or Section 69C or Section 69D

SHRI HARISH SHARMA,LUDHIANA vs. ITO , LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

68, section 69, section 69A, section 69B, section 69C or section 69D and reflected in the return

SHRI BHUWAN GOYAL,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-1, LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

68, section 69, section 69A, section 69B, section 69C or section 69D and reflected in the return