DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. PARAMJIT SINGH, MOHALI

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

71, Chandigarh Mohali "थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: ACLPK6637Q Appeal against the order of CIT(A)-3, Gurgaon dated 28.10.2016 IN DIVISION BENCH, ‘B’, CHANDIGARH आयकर अपील सं./ ITA Nos. 45 to 47/CHD/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2008-09, 2009-10, & 2011-12 The DCIT, Central Circle-1, Smt. Manjit Kaur, बनाम Chandigarh #201, Sector 16-A, Chandigarh "थायी

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. KULWANT SINGH, MOHALI

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

71, Chandigarh Mohali "थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: ACLPK6637Q Appeal against the order of CIT(A)-3, Gurgaon dated 28.10.2016 IN DIVISION BENCH, ‘B’, CHANDIGARH आयकर अपील सं./ ITA Nos. 45 to 47/CHD/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2008-09, 2009-10, & 2011-12 The DCIT, Central Circle-1, Smt. Manjit Kaur, बनाम Chandigarh #201, Sector 16-A, Chandigarh "थायी

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. PARAMJIT SINGH, MOHALI

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

71, Chandigarh Mohali "थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: ACLPK6637Q Appeal against the order of CIT(A)-3, Gurgaon dated 28.10.2016 IN DIVISION BENCH, ‘B’, CHANDIGARH आयकर अपील सं./ ITA Nos. 45 to 47/CHD/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2008-09, 2009-10, & 2011-12 The DCIT, Central Circle-1, Smt. Manjit Kaur, बनाम Chandigarh #201, Sector 16-A, Chandigarh "थायी

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. JASWANT KAUR, MOHALI

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

71, Chandigarh Mohali "थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: ACLPK6637Q Appeal against the order of CIT(A)-3, Gurgaon dated 28.10.2016 IN DIVISION BENCH, ‘B’, CHANDIGARH आयकर अपील सं./ ITA Nos. 45 to 47/CHD/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2008-09, 2009-10, & 2011-12 The DCIT, Central Circle-1, Smt. Manjit Kaur, बनाम Chandigarh #201, Sector 16-A, Chandigarh "थायी

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. JASWANT KAUR, MOHALI

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

71, Chandigarh Mohali "थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: ACLPK6637Q Appeal against the order of CIT(A)-3, Gurgaon dated 28.10.2016 IN DIVISION BENCH, ‘B’, CHANDIGARH आयकर अपील सं./ ITA Nos. 45 to 47/CHD/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2008-09, 2009-10, & 2011-12 The DCIT, Central Circle-1, Smt. Manjit Kaur, बनाम Chandigarh #201, Sector 16-A, Chandigarh "थायी

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

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

71,106/- under section 69C as so confirmed by the Coordinate Benches vide its order dt. 19/05/2022. 7. Though the quantum of addition so made by the AO has been restricted on subsequent appeals, the findings of AO continues to remain relevant for determining whether the provision of Section 115BBE are attracted in the instant case

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

68, section 69, section 69A, section 69B, section 69C or section 69D, at the rate of thirty per cent.; and (b) the amount of income-tax with which the assessee would have been chargeable had his total income been reduced by the amount of income referred to in clause (a). (2) Notwithstanding anything contained

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 has to be assessed under section 56. In the case before us, source of unexplained cash credits is not known and hence they cannot be linked to any known source/head of income including income from other sources. In order to constitute 'income from 'other sources', the source, namely, the "other sources", has to be identified. Income from unexplained

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

71,190/-. However, the Assessing Officer without appreciating the facts and reply submitted from time to time by invoking the provisions of section 69 of the Act treated the same as unexplained investments in the hands of the Assessee, which on appeal, was upheld by the ld. CIT(A). It is important to refer the provisions of section

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 of the act of the lender companies as well as without considering the facts of the case? 2. Whether upon the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified to delete the addition made by the A.O. on account of interest payments made to Highrise Securities & Trading

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 of the act of the lender companies as well as without considering the facts of the case? 2. Whether upon the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified to delete the addition made by the A.O. on account of interest payments made to Highrise Securities & Trading

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)

Section 133(6) of the Income Tax Act to carry out any further enquiry, if any such enquiry was required to be made of Shri Sangram Singh. 21.10 Further, the AO did not dispute the fact that on 23.08.2017, as above, the assessee repaid the loan to Shri Sangram Singh through cheque, and pertinently, this came about much before

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, introduced by the Finance Act, 2012 with effect from 01.04.2013 being prospective in nature is not applicable in the preceding years. The issue and the law thereupon have already been discussed above. In view of this, impugned addition of Rs. 1,10,00,000/-is not sustainable. The order of the CIT(A) deleting

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, introduced by the Finance Act, 2012 with effect from 01.04.2013 being prospective in nature is not applicable in the preceding years. The issue and the law thereupon have already been discussed above. In view of this, impugned addition of Rs. 1,10,00,000/-is not sustainable. The order of the CIT(A) deleting

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, introduced by the Finance Act, 2012 with effect from 01.04.2013 being prospective in nature is not applicable in the preceding years. The issue and the law thereupon have already been discussed above. In view of this, impugned addition of Rs. 1,10,00,000/-is not sustainable. The order of the CIT(A) deleting

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, introduced by the Finance Act, 2012 with effect from 01.04.2013 being prospective in nature is not applicable in the preceding years. The issue and the law thereupon have already been discussed above. In view of this, impugned addition of Rs. 1,10,00,000/-is not sustainable. The order of the CIT(A) deleting

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, introduced by the Finance Act, 2012 with effect from 01.04.2013 being prospective in nature is not applicable in the preceding years. The issue and the law thereupon have already been discussed above. In view of this, impugned addition of Rs. 1,10,00,000/-is not sustainable. The order of the CIT(A) deleting