SHRI BALRAM KRISHAN,CHANDIGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

section 153C, for the sake of ready reference, are reproduced as under: 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74

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u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 with respect to cash withdrawals without any finding doubting the source of funds withdrawn. 3.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

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.

68 r.w..s 115BBE of the Act. 3. During the period commencing from 09/11/2016 to 31/12/2016 (demonetisation period) the assessee had deposited sum of Rs. 1,18,88,500/- in their bank account with HDFC Bank. During the course of the proceedings, the assessee was asked to explain the source of such huge cash deposit post demonetisation announcement. The Assessee

SH. ABHISHEK BANSAL,BARNALA vs. PR. CIT, PATIALA

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Dr Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 131/Chd/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Abhishek Bansal, Vs. Pr. Commissioner बनाम Prop. M/S Lifeline Multi Income Tax, Specialilty Hospitality, 25 Acre Patiala Extn., Near Fountain Chowk, Barnala, Punjab "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Acgpb5740E अपीलाथ" ./ Appellant ""यथ" / Respondent ( Hybrid Mode ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Sh. Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Rohit Sharma, Cit Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 09.05.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 13.06.2024 आदेश/Order Per Dr. Krinwant Sahay, A.M.:

74,99,840/-. In the said return of income, the assessee declared an amount of Rs. 1,66,09,183/- under the head “income from business / profession’, Rs. 20,902/- under the head "Income from House Property" and Rs. 131-Chd-2023 – Shri Abhishek Bansal, Barnala 6 10,76,719/- under the head "Income from Other Sources." It is submitted

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

Section 68 on account of advances from customers, disallowance of depreciation amounting to Rs. 10,34,306/- and an addition of Rs. 2,81,74

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

Section 68 on account of advances from customers, disallowance of depreciation amounting to Rs. 10,34,306/- and an addition of Rs. 2,81,74

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

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

SAWASTIKA PRINTING & PACKAGING,KALA MAB vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, NAHAN

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: the Hon'ble CIT(A)(NFAC) that assessee is having business turnover of Rs 16,77,30,943/-. While upholding the additions of Rs 20,81,000/- the Hon'ble CIT(A) (NFAC) has observed in last para of his order as under:-

74,000/- and treated the same as unexplained cash credits under section 68 of the Act. The said amount

ITO, WARD, SANGRUR vs. SHRI VANEET MITTAL, SANGRUR

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A). The Ld. Cit(A) After Hearing The Assessee Allowed The Appeal & Deleted

74,750/- i.e., 50% of the total consideration paid for purchasing land jointly with his wife. Since the assessee could explain the source of investment amounting to Rs. 1,25,000/- (balance shown in saving bank account), Rs. 6,54,000/- balance in capital account in Mittal Traders and Rs. 50,000/- from salary, the AO has rightly made addition

SH. VARINDER KUMAR GUPTA,PATIALA vs. PR. CIT, PATIALA

In the result appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 754/Chd/2018 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shri Varinder Kumar Gupta, The Ito, Ward -5, बनाम # 278, Urban Estate, Phase-1 Patiala Patiala "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Anppg 8996Q अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and had been presumed as genuine by the Assessing Officer simply on the basis of these transactions being of banking nature. Huge transactions in the bank accounts in respect of an assessee who has shown meager income of Rs.8,43,730/- only should have been examined in depth. No income from

SMT. ASHA GANDHI,LUDHIANA vs. ITO, W-II(1), LUDHIANA

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

74, Hargobind Nagar, Ludhiana. Giaspura, Ludhiana. "थायी लेखा सं./PAN No: AGWPG9408Q अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Gaurav Sharma राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue by : Shri Shiv Swaroop Sharma सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 30.05.2019 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement : 29.08.2019 आदेश/ORDER The present appeal has been

DCIT, LUDHIANA vs. M/S INCITE HOMECARE PVT. LTD., LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R.Kumarassessment Year: 2011-12

74,00,000/- and part of the amount spent on construction during A.Ys. 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13 have been spent out of interest free funds available with the assessee company and the question with regard to capitalization of interest on the amount used out of own funds including opening balance does not arise. However, the amount given

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)

68 of the Act, since the assessee did not establish its genuineness during the assessment proceedings. The Department has contended that the ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that the identity and credit worthiness of the persons from whom the credits comprising the amount of Rs.2,77,01,650/- were received, stood proved, whereas the genuineness of the transactions

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)

68 of the Act, since the assessee did not establish its genuineness during the assessment proceedings. The Department has contended that the ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that the identity and credit worthiness of the persons from whom the credits comprising the amount of Rs.2,77,01,650/- were received, stood proved, whereas the genuineness of the transactions