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)

68 of Income Tax Act 1961 but if such income from undisclosed sources, though, invested had not been recorded in the assessee's books, than such income is liable to be assessed in terms of section 69 of Income Tax Act 1961. vii. In Roshan Lal Madan VS CIT 245 ITR (AT) 36 (Chandigarh) AND Jagmohan Ram Ram Chandra

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.

section 68 stands prove and no addition is called for. OF SR. NO. NAME OF THE LENDER AMOUNT 3 Deepika Goyal wife of Received assessee (Sh. Rajiv Goyal) 27,06,236/-on 26.07.2017 10,00,000/-on 10.08.2017 9. IDENTITY OF THE LENDER : It is submitted before your goodself that Mrs. Deepika Goyal wife of assessee tax vide

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.

section 68 r.w.s. 115BBE without pointing out any lacuna in books of account of the assessee. The only lacuna they have pointed out is cash deposit. Be that as it may cash deposit are regularly deposited by the assessee in their Firm’s bank account with HDFC Bank. Extracts of statement of account has been produced; coupled with other

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

Section 68 are not attracted which renders the order illegal, arbitrary and unjustified. 3. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) has further erred in upholding the addition of Rs.4,83

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

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

68,00,252.81 5,84,50,000.00 October 2012 26,22,00,112.36 24,62,00,000.00 November 2012 27,66,50,028.09 27,42,00,000.00 December 2012 37,65,42,968.54 38,52,00,028.09 January 2013 41,89,00,000.00 40,99,40,000.00 February 2013 162,40,50,224.72 166,83,15000.00 March

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

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

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

WINSOME TEXTILE INDUSTRIES LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1), CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

83,97,342/-. 7. Being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) wherein the order so passed by the AO under section 143(3) r.w.s 147 dt. 28/12/2018 was challenged both in terms of assumption of jurisdiction under section 147 of the Act as well as on the merits of the addition

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHANDIGARH vs. WINSOME TEXTILE INDUSTRIES LTD, CHANDIGARH

68 of the Act. The AO further did not\nallow the set off of the income so assessed against the brought forward losses/\nunabsorbed depreciation and as against the returned income of Rs.\n21,05,09,769/-, the assessed income was determined at Rs.44,75,88,075/- under\nthe normal provision and income under section 115JB at Rs.12,83

M/S SANJAY SINGAL HUF,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on account of unexplained cash credit in each appeal i.e. ITA Nos. 708, 710, 71 l/Chd/2018; ITA No. 714, 716 and 717/Chd/2018; ITA No. 718 &719/Chd/2018; and 705/Chd/2018 83

SANJAY SINGAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on account of unexplained cash credit in each appeal i.e. ITA Nos. 708, 710, 71 l/Chd/2018; ITA No. 714, 716 and 717/Chd/2018; ITA No. 718 &719/Chd/2018; and 705/Chd/2018 83

ATUL JINDAL, LUDHIANA,PUNJAB vs. DCIT CIRCLE-6 LDH CURRENT JAO ITO, WARD-1(5), LUDHIANA, PUNJAB

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: This Tribunal. 3. Briefly, The Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Individual Engaged In The Business Of Import & Trading Of Copper-Based Products Through His Proprietorship Concern, Usha Impex. The Assessee Filed The Return Of Income On 29.09.2014 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.42,83,680/-.

section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) in the assessment framed pursuant to the order passed u/s 263. 2. The assessee is aggrieved by the findings of the authorities below and is in further appeal before this Tribunal. 3. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual engaged in the business

SH. ABHIMANYU SOIN,LUDHIANA vs. ACIT, LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri. Sanjay Garg, Judicial, Member & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2011-12

83,57,578/- (total sale proceeds of shares) by denying the exemption under the long term capital gain and further assessing the income under section 68

BHANU PRATAP JAIN,LUDHIANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, LUDHIANA

In the result the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 155/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Bhanu Pratap Jain, Proprietor, Vs. The Ito, बनाम Ward Vii(1), M/S Pehal International, Ludhiana B-31, Phase V, Focal Point, Ludhiana "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Agzpjj0090L अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent ( Physical Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Ashwani Kumar, Ca राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Vivek Vardhan, Jcit, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 08.08.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 16.10.2024

Section 68 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The Assessee is an individual and is engaged in the business of dealing in yarn. The Assessee was a sole proprietor of M/s Pehal International and was a Partner in M/s Srishti Wool Combers. Return of income for A.Y. 2017-18 was filed on 31.10.2017 declaring income

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

68. 8. The assessee is a partner in the firm styled as V.K. Holdings and the capital investment therein is in the nature of investment. Similarly, the company styled as V.K. Infrainvest Pvt. Ltd. In which the assessee is a shareholder. Contract for green fee was allotted. The amount was advanced to the company for the purpose of business expediency