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u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 with respect to cash withdrawals without any finding doubting the source of funds withdrawn. 3.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 ARYANS EDUCATIONAL AND CHARITABLE TRUST,MOHALI vs. DCIT, C-1, (E), CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Dr Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 821/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 M/S Aryans Educational & Vs. The Dcit, Circle-1 Charitable Trust, बनाम (Exemptions), # 2129, Phase-10, Chandigarh Mohali "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aabta7550L

73,648/- made by the 821--Chd-2019 – M/s Aryans Educational and Charitable Trust, Mohali 2 assessing officer applying the provisions of Section 115BBC and Section 68

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

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

section 143(2) was issued on 02/09/2014 by the Dy. CIT Circle1(1) Chandigarh 2 and served upon the assessee on 08/09/2014. Thereafter the case record was transferred to ITO Ward1(3) which was received on 26/05/2015. That further proceedings were taken up by issuing notice u/s 142(1) alongwith questionnaire on 11/06/2015 followed by on 30/07/2015. That

BHAWNA PURI,MANDI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD, MANDI, MANDI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in the above terms

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

section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 on account of cash deposits during the demonetization period. 2. In the present appeal Assessee has raised the following grounds: 1. That in the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not justified in not considering / appreciating the submission put forth by the assessee

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

68 of the Act by ignoring the relevant specific facts and circumstances of the case and by relying on extraneous arguments and evidences, including in particular, circumstantial evidence, which has no bearing and applicability to the case. 3. That the Ld Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Gurgaon was not justified to uphold the action of the Ld. Assessing Officer

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

68 of the Act by ignoring the relevant specific facts and circumstances of the case and by relying on extraneous arguments and evidences, including in particular, circumstantial evidence, which has no bearing and applicability to the case. 3. That the Ld Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Gurgaon was not justified to uphold the action of the Ld. Assessing Officer

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

68 of the Act by ignoring the relevant specific facts and circumstances of the case and by relying on extraneous arguments and evidences, including in particular, circumstantial evidence, which has no bearing and applicability to the case. 3. That the Ld Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Gurgaon was not justified to uphold the action of the Ld. Assessing Officer

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

68 of the Act by ignoring the relevant specific facts and circumstances of the case and by relying on extraneous arguments and evidences, including in particular, circumstantial evidence, which has no bearing and applicability to the case. 3. That the Ld Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Gurgaon was not justified to uphold the action of the Ld. Assessing Officer

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

68 of the Act by ignoring the relevant specific facts and circumstances of the case and by relying on extraneous arguments and evidences, including in particular, circumstantial evidence, which has no bearing and applicability to the case. 3. That the Ld Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Gurgaon was not justified to uphold the action of the Ld. Assessing Officer

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

68 of the Act by ignoring the relevant specific facts and circumstances of the case and by relying on extraneous arguments and evidences, including in particular, circumstantial evidence, which has no bearing and applicability to the case. 3. That the Ld Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Gurgaon was not justified to uphold the action of the Ld. Assessing Officer

SECL INDUSTRIES LIMITED,BATHINDA vs. DCIT, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Section 68 applies equally to share application money received by the assessee and the burden is on the assessee to prove the nature and source thereof to the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer regarding the three ingredients i.e. proof regarding identity of the share applicants, their creditworthiness to purchase the shares and the genuineness of the transaction

SMT. JYOTI BHALLA,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO, WARD-3(2), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

68 of the Act and tax is charged @ 60% plus applicable surcharge as per Section 115BBE. Further, penalty u/s 271AAB of the Act for under reporting of the income is initiated.” 9. Being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who has since sustained the said addition. Against the findings and the directions

ACIT, CC-2, CHANDIGARH vs. M/S TJR PROPERTIES PVT. LTD., CHANDIGARH

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

section 68 were, satisfied and hence the CIT(A) granted relief of Rs. 2,77,01,650/- to the assessee company. 41. Further, the CIT(A) in his order has mentioned that : ITA 5 &145/CHD/2023 A.Y. 2017-18 41 "It was further explained that the AO has used statement of Sh. Jagdish Rai Gupta selectively in parts by drawing

M/S TJR PROPERTIES PVT. LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. ACIT, CC-2, CHANDIGARH

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

section 68 were, satisfied and hence the CIT(A) granted relief of Rs. 2,77,01,650/- to the assessee company. 41. Further, the CIT(A) in his order has mentioned that : ITA 5 &145/CHD/2023 A.Y. 2017-18 41 "It was further explained that the AO has used statement of Sh. Jagdish Rai Gupta selectively in parts by drawing

ARYANS EDUCATIONAL AND CHARITABLE TRUST REGD, MOHALI,MOHALI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, EXEMPTIONS, CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1136/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2025-26 Aryans Educational & The Cit (Exemptions), Charitable Trust, Regd.Mohali Vs Chandigarh, C/O Shri Tej Mohan Singh, Advocate, # 527, Sector 10-D, Chandigarh. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aabta7550L अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Tej Mohan Singh, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Manav Bansal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 07.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.09.2025

73,648/- by applying the provisions of section 115BBC and section 68 of the Act treating corpus donations

OSWAL POLYCOT (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-I, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

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

section 68 of the I.T. Act, 1961. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the 5. Ld.CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the surrounding circumstances of the group transactions which clearly show that large sums of money are being rotated through bank accounts of various entities of the group indicating dubious nature

OSWAL POLYCOT (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-I, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

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

section 68 of the I.T. Act, 1961. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the 5. Ld.CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the surrounding circumstances of the group transactions which clearly show that large sums of money are being rotated through bank accounts of various entities of the group indicating dubious nature

DCIT, CC-I, LUDHIANA vs. OSWAL POLYCOT (INDIA) PVT. LTD., LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

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

section 68 of the I.T. Act, 1961. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the 5. Ld.CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the surrounding circumstances of the group transactions which clearly show that large sums of money are being rotated through bank accounts of various entities of the group indicating dubious nature