DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. PARAMJIT SINGH, MOHALI

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

68, Chandigarh Mohali "थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AEKPS5692A Appeal against the order of CIT(A)-3, Gurgaon dated 28.10.2016 "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee by : Sh. Pankaj Bhalla, CAs राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue by : Smt. Chanderkanta, Sr.DR सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 15.02.2019 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement : 20.03.2019 आदेश/Order

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. MANJIT KAUR, CHANDIGARH

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

68, Chandigarh Mohali "थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AEKPS5692A Appeal against the order of CIT(A)-3, Gurgaon dated 28.10.2016 "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee by : Sh. Pankaj Bhalla, CAs राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue by : Smt. Chanderkanta, Sr.DR सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 15.02.2019 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement : 20.03.2019 आदेश/Order

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. JASWANT KAUR, MOHALI

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

68, Chandigarh Mohali "थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AEKPS5692A Appeal against the order of CIT(A)-3, Gurgaon dated 28.10.2016 "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee by : Sh. Pankaj Bhalla, CAs राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue by : Smt. Chanderkanta, Sr.DR सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 15.02.2019 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement : 20.03.2019 आदेश/Order

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. JASWANT KAUR, MOHALI

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

68, Chandigarh Mohali "थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AEKPS5692A Appeal against the order of CIT(A)-3, Gurgaon dated 28.10.2016 "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee by : Sh. Pankaj Bhalla, CAs राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue by : Smt. Chanderkanta, Sr.DR सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 15.02.2019 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement : 20.03.2019 आदेश/Order

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. KULWANT SINGH, MOHALI

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

68, Chandigarh Mohali "थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AEKPS5692A Appeal against the order of CIT(A)-3, Gurgaon dated 28.10.2016 "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee by : Sh. Pankaj Bhalla, CAs राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue by : Smt. Chanderkanta, Sr.DR सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 15.02.2019 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement : 20.03.2019 आदेश/Order

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. PARAMJIT SINGH, MOHALI

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

68, Chandigarh Mohali "थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AEKPS5692A Appeal against the order of CIT(A)-3, Gurgaon dated 28.10.2016 "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee by : Sh. Pankaj Bhalla, CAs राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue by : Smt. Chanderkanta, Sr.DR सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 15.02.2019 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement : 20.03.2019 आदेश/Order

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. KULWANT SINGH, MOHALI

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

68, Chandigarh Mohali "थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AEKPS5692A Appeal against the order of CIT(A)-3, Gurgaon dated 28.10.2016 "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee by : Sh. Pankaj Bhalla, CAs राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue by : Smt. Chanderkanta, Sr.DR सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 15.02.2019 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement : 20.03.2019 आदेश/Order

AARTI SINGAL,NEW DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the above appeals are allowed

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 939/Chd/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Shri Aniket Singal बनाम The DCIT Central Circle-1 Chandigarh 4, Amritashergil Marg, New Delhi- 110003 स्थायी लेखा सं./ PAN NO: CZCPS6126E अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 1145/Chd/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Smt. Aarti Singal बनाम The DCIT Central Circle-1 Chandigarh 53, Jor Bagh, New Delhi-110003 स

68 and that as to whether the authorities below are justified in making addition of an amount of Rs. 1,76,33,254/- under Section 69C of the Act, on account of alleged unaccounted commission paid by the assessee at the rate of 6.5% for the purpose of earning Long Term Capital Gains. 9.1 We find from the record

ANIKET SINGAL,NEW DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the above appeals are allowed

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 939/Chd/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Shri Aniket Singal बनाम The DCIT 4, Amritashergil Marg, New Delhi- 110003 Central Circle-1 Chandigarh स्थायी लेखा सं./ PAN NO: CZCPS6126E अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 1145/Chd/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Smt. Aarti Singal बनाम The DCIT 53, Jor Bagh, New Delhi-110003 Central Circle-1 Chandigarh स

68 and that as to whether the authorities below are justified in making addition of an amount of Rs. 1,76,33,254/- under Section 69C of the Act, on account of alleged unaccounted commission paid by the assessee at the rate of 6.5% for the purpose of earning Long Term Capital Gains. 9.1 We find from the record

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)

85,000. However, the Show Cause Notice indicates a figure of Rs. 3,11,35,000, while the Assessment Order states it as Rs. 3,68,63,786. It appears that the Ld. AO has made significant errors in assessing these figures, indicating confusion or oversight. 2.3.10 Furthermore, it is evident that Ld. AO actions were not in accordance with

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.

85,19,140/-. 15. The matter was carried in first appeal by the assessee to Ld. CIT(A) under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 who has sustained the assessment order of Ld. AO dated 22/12/2019 under section 68

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 and in view of the same, both the additions so made by the AO are hereby directed to be deleted. 8.14 In the result, the ground no. 3 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed and ground no. 1 of the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed. 9. In Ground No. 4, the assessee had challenged the sustenance

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 and in view of the same, both the additions so made by the AO are hereby directed to be deleted. 8.14 In the result, the ground no. 3 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed and ground no. 1 of the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed. 9. In Ground No. 4, the assessee had challenged the sustenance

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

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

85,000/- was filed by the assessee on 28/09/2013 which was processed as such. That the case was selected through CASS for the limited scrutiny to 3. examine the large investment in property as compared to total income declared by the assessee in her return of income. Accordingly, notices under section 143(2) was issued on 02/09/2014

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