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

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 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by treating the share application/share premium received by the assessee as unaccounted income of the assessee. 25.1 The AO during the assessment proceedings noted that the assessee had received a sum of Rs.8,20,50,000/- from M/s Fantastic Commercial Pvt. Ltd. and Rs.75 lacs from M/s Gayatri Investment Consultants

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 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by treating the share application/share premium received by the assessee as unaccounted income of the assessee. 25.1 The AO during the assessment proceedings noted that the assessee had received a sum of Rs.8,20,50,000/- from M/s Fantastic Commercial Pvt. Ltd. and Rs.75 lacs from M/s Gayatri Investment Consultants

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 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by treating the share application/share premium received by the assessee as unaccounted income of the assessee. 25.1 The AO during the assessment proceedings noted that the assessee had received a sum of Rs.8,20,50,000/- from M/s Fantastic Commercial Pvt. Ltd. and Rs.75 lacs from M/s Gayatri Investment Consultants

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 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by treating the share application/share premium received by the assessee as unaccounted income of the assessee. 25.1 The AO during the assessment proceedings noted that the assessee had received a sum of Rs.8,20,50,000/- from M/s Fantastic Commercial Pvt. Ltd. and Rs.75 lacs from M/s Gayatri Investment Consultants

ACIT -CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,, LUDHIANA vs. M/S OSWAL TRENDS PVT. LTD., LUDHIANA

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Krinwant Sahay

Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by treating the share application/share premium received by the assessee as unaccounted income of the assessee. 25.1 The AO during the assessment proceedings noted that the assessee had received a sum of Rs.8,20,50,000/- from M/s Fantastic Commercial Pvt. Ltd. and Rs.75 lacs from M/s Gayatri Investment Consultants

ACIT -CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,, LUDHIANA vs. M/S OSWAL TRENDS PVT. LTD., LUDHIANA

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Krinwant Sahay

Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by treating the share application/share premium received by the assessee as unaccounted income of the assessee. 25.1 The AO during the assessment proceedings noted that the assessee had received a sum of Rs.8,20,50,000/- from M/s Fantastic Commercial Pvt. Ltd. and Rs.75 lacs from M/s Gayatri Investment Consultants

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

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

68,86,042/-from the sale of shares of Maa Jagdambe during the year under consideration. Such shares have been shown as purchased on 12.03.2013 through preferential allotment offline @Rs.l0/-. Such shares have been sold during the year under consideration on various dates from 29.09.2014 to 05.03.2015 at various rates ranging from Rs. 99.75 to Rs.106/- through the platform

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

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

68,86,042/-from the sale of shares of Maa Jagdambe during the year under consideration. Such shares have been shown as purchased on 12.03.2013 through preferential allotment offline @Rs.l0/-. Such shares have been sold during the year under consideration on various dates from 29.09.2014 to 05.03.2015 at various rates ranging from Rs. 99.75 to Rs.106/- through the platform

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

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

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

86,802/- During the assessment proceedings the assessee furnished complete movement of capital account from 01.04.2005. The AO accepted the opening balance of capital at Rs. 42,56,666/- however, made addition of Rs. 80,55, 462/- to the income of the assessee under section 68

SHRI BALBIR SINGH VERMA,SHIMLA vs. PR.CIT, SHIMLA

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

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

68, read with Section 115BBE. The absence of independent inquiry led the Pr. CIT to determine that the assessment order was again erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. 5.4 Upon examining the Balance Sheet and its schedules, the Pr. CIT also found a discrepancy of Rs. 17,50,000 in the closing stock value of four flats. Although