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.” 11. Respectfully following the above decisions, which, in our view, are squarely applicable on the facts of the instant case, we find that the assessee has successfully discharged the burden of proof primarily casted upon it to explain the identity and creditworthiness of share applicant and genuineness of the share transactions and correctness of such details

M/S OSWAL APPARELS PVT. 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.” 11. Respectfully following the above decisions, which, in our view, are squarely applicable on the facts of the instant case, we find that the assessee has successfully discharged the burden of proof primarily casted upon it to explain the identity and creditworthiness of share applicant and genuineness of the share transactions and correctness of such details

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.” 11. Respectfully following the above decisions, which, in our view, are squarely applicable on the facts of the instant case, we find that the assessee has successfully discharged the burden of proof primarily casted upon it to explain the identity and creditworthiness of share applicant and genuineness of the share transactions and correctness of such details

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.” 11. Respectfully following the above decisions, which, in our view, are squarely applicable on the facts of the instant case, we find that the assessee has successfully discharged the burden of proof primarily casted upon it to explain the identity and creditworthiness of share applicant and genuineness of the share transactions and correctness of such details

INCOME TAX OFFICER, NEW LIBRA KOTHI, RAILWAY ROAD, SIRHIND vs. BHAGWAN DASS, AMLOH ROAD, MANDI GOBINDGARH

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

sections 68, 69C, and other rules. The assessment was completed under\nsection 143(3), with total income fixed at Rs.6,79

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

Section 68 of the Act the submissions of the assessee had been reproduced by the Ld. CIT(A) at page no. 124 to 154 of the assessment order, the same are reproduced verbatim as under: (1) The Appellant had, from time to time, invested in shares/share warrants (which were subsequently converted into equity shares) of various companies and which

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

Section 68 of the Act the submissions of the assessee had been reproduced by the Ld. CIT(A) at page no. 124 to 154 of the assessment order, the same are reproduced verbatim as under: (1) The Appellant had, from time to time, invested in shares/share warrants (which were subsequently converted into equity shares) of various companies and which

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

Section 68 of the Act the submissions of the assessee had been reproduced by the Ld. CIT(A) at page no. 124 to 154 of the assessment order, the same are reproduced verbatim as under: (1) The Appellant had, from time to time, invested in shares/share warrants (which were subsequently converted into equity shares) of various companies and which

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

Section 68 of the Act the submissions of the assessee had been reproduced by the Ld. CIT(A) at page no. 124 to 154 of the assessment order, the same are reproduced verbatim as under: (1) The Appellant had, from time to time, invested in shares/share warrants (which were subsequently converted into equity shares) of various companies and which

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

Section 68 of the Act the submissions of the assessee had been reproduced by the Ld. CIT(A) at page no. 124 to 154 of the assessment order, the same are reproduced verbatim as under: (1) The Appellant had, from time to time, invested in shares/share warrants (which were subsequently converted into equity shares) of various companies and which

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

Section 68 of the Act the submissions of the assessee had been reproduced by the Ld. CIT(A) at page no. 124 to 154 of the assessment order, the same are reproduced verbatim as under: (1) The Appellant had, from time to time, invested in shares/share warrants (which were subsequently converted into equity shares) of various companies and which

SHRI MUKESH KUMAR,JAGADHARI vs. ITO-WARD-2, YAMUNA NAGAR

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

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shrir.L Negiआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.40/Chd/2020 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year :2014-15 Sh. Mukesh Kumar, The Ito, बनाम C/O Rajiv Goel & Associates, Ward-2, 179, Bank Road, Yamunanagar Ambala Cantt. "थायीलेखासं./Pan No. Agdpk9371P अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

section 147 of the Act. Thereafter, reassessment proceedings were initiated for the assessment years 2010-11 to 2013-14 and additions of Rs. 1,42,92,186/-, Rs. 93,37,171/-, Rs. 36,61,237/-, Rs. 68,230/- and Rs. 7,25,548/-were made in the assessment years 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 and 2013-14 respectively

SHRI KRISHAN KUMAR JALAN,BANGALORE vs. ITO, W-1, SIRSA

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

68\nIncome assessed\nRs.8,58,360/-\nRs.1,04,06,762/-\nRs.1,12,65,329/-\n2.9 The above order of assessment is under Section 143(3) of the Act of\nITO Ward-1, Sirsa. It is dated 31/12/2016.\n2.10 In the aforesaid assessment order dt. 31/12/2016 the Ld. AO has\ntaken into consideration investigation carried out by the investigation\nwing

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

section 68 have also been addressed and all go to prove the genuineness of the transactions. The evidences, it was submitted, stands unassailed by the Revenue. Inviting attention to the 3 volume of paper books filed, it was submitted, that the details and documents on the basis of which the conclusion has been arrived

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

M/S NAMDHARI INDUSTRIAL TRADERS PVT. LTD.,LUDHIANA vs. ACIT, LUDHIANA

section 68 of the Act AO has jurisdiction to make addition where any sum is found credited in the bank account of the assessee A.Y. 2012-13 Page 11 of 14 and the assessee offers no explanation about nature and source thereof or explanation offered by him is not in the opinion of the A.O. satisfactory

M/S AKSHAJ INFRA PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

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

79,838.00 made to the returned income of the Appellant by the learned DCIT under section 68 of the Act for the reason