DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. JASWANT KAUR, MOHALI

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

68, Chandigarh Mohali "थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AEKPS5692A Appeal against the order of CIT(A)-3, Gurgaon dated 28.10.2016 "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee by : Sh. Pankaj Bhalla, CAs राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue by : Smt. Chanderkanta, Sr.DR सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 15.02.2019 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement : 20.03.2019 आदेश/Order

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. KULWANT SINGH, MOHALI

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

68, Chandigarh Mohali "थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AEKPS5692A Appeal against the order of CIT(A)-3, Gurgaon dated 28.10.2016 "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee by : Sh. Pankaj Bhalla, CAs राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue by : Smt. Chanderkanta, Sr.DR सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 15.02.2019 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement : 20.03.2019 आदेश/Order

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. MANJIT KAUR, CHANDIGARH

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

68, Chandigarh Mohali "थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AEKPS5692A Appeal against the order of CIT(A)-3, Gurgaon dated 28.10.2016 "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee by : Sh. Pankaj Bhalla, CAs राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue by : Smt. Chanderkanta, Sr.DR सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 15.02.2019 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement : 20.03.2019 आदेश/Order

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. JASWANT KAUR, MOHALI

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

68, Chandigarh Mohali "थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AEKPS5692A Appeal against the order of CIT(A)-3, Gurgaon dated 28.10.2016 "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee by : Sh. Pankaj Bhalla, CAs राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue by : Smt. Chanderkanta, Sr.DR सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 15.02.2019 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement : 20.03.2019 आदेश/Order

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. PARAMJIT SINGH, MOHALI

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

68, Chandigarh Mohali "थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AEKPS5692A Appeal against the order of CIT(A)-3, Gurgaon dated 28.10.2016 "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee by : Sh. Pankaj Bhalla, CAs राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue by : Smt. Chanderkanta, Sr.DR सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 15.02.2019 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement : 20.03.2019 आदेश/Order

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

sections 70 to 80 of the Act, which allows set off of business losses against current year business losses subject to fulfillment of certain conditions. There is no dispute about the above position of law. 14. Further the Act also provides for treating certain credits, investments, expenses from undisclosed sources, as deemed incomes u/s 68

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)

Section 68 can be invoked in respect of amount of Rs 14,70,000/- introduced in the capital account

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.

68 invoking the provisions of section 115BBE are not applicable. 6.3 Further, the Ld. AR drew our attention to the judgment of Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Karaj Singh as reported in [2011] 15 taxmann.com 70

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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC-1, LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA vs. SHREE GANESH EDIBLES PVT. LTD., KHANNA

The appeal stand dismissed

Bench: SHRI RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

section 68 were not attracted. Similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax, Bhatinda AY: 2019-20 & 2022-23 v. Karaj Singh [2011] 15 taxmann.com 70

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC-1, LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA vs. SHREE GANESH EDIBLES PVT. LTD., KHANNA

The appeal stand dismissed

Bench: SHRI RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

section 68 were not attracted. Similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax, Bhatinda AY: 2019-20 & 2022-23 v. Karaj Singh [2011] 15 taxmann.com 70

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 is not covered under clause (a), the income-tax payable shall be the aggregate of- (i) the amount of income-tax calculated on the income referred to in clause (a) and clause (b), at the rate of sixty per cent

SAHIL SINGLA,CHANDIGARH vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC-2, CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

70 lakhs and all the three limbs of section 68 could 4 not be satisfied by the appellant to establish

SWARN GANGA JEWELLERS,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 4(1) NOW DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: This Tribunal Being Aggrieved By An Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/1045180258(1) For A.Y. 2017-18 Dt. 05/09/2022 Which Is Hereinafter Referred To As The “Impugned Order”. The Impugned Order Is Passed By Cit(A) In Terms Of Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. Factual Matrix 2. That Survey U/S 133A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Was Conducted On The Business Premises Of The Assessee On 06/09/2016. The Assessee Surrendered A Sum Of Rs. 50,00,000/- During The Survey & Paid Tax Thereon. The Return Of Income Was Filed On 01/11/2017 Declaring A Total Income Of Rs. 89,48,260/-. Thereafter The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny Under Compulsory Scrutiny Guidelines & Notice Under Section 143(2) Of The Act Was Issued On 11/09/2018. The Assessment Was Finalised Vide Order Dt. 23/12/2019 Whereby Addition Of Rs. 95,70,882/- Was Made U/S 68 R.W..S 115Bbe Of The Act.

70,882/- is added as supra and finally assessed income is Rs. 1,85,19,140/-. 15. The matter was carried in first appeal by the assessee to Ld. CIT(A) under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 who has sustained the assessment order of Ld. AO dated 22/12/2019 under section 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)

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

RAV SHARAN SINGH,PATIALA vs. ACIT, C.C., PATIALA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 , LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA vs. NICE EXPORTS PRIVATE LIMITED, A-15A, PHASE-VII,, FOCAL POINT, LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

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

section 68, which squarely lies upon the assessee. 12. The Ld. DR submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in placing reliance on RBI Circular No. 100 dated 04.02.2014, as the impugned transactions pertained to the earlier period, i.e., FY 2012–13, when Circular No. 70