SANJEEV KUMAR GOYAL,FATEHABAD vs. DCIT, CC-2, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is allowed

Bench: This Hon’Ble Tribunal Under Section 253 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 As Amended From Time To Time. 2. The Assessee Is Aggrieved By The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Dt. 20/01/2023 In Appeal No. 10853/2018-19/It/Cit(A)-5/Ldh/2021-22 For The A.Y. 2019-20 Under Section 250(6) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Which Was Dismissed. Therefore The Present Second Appeal Under Section 253 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Before Us Against The Aforesaid Order Dt. 20/01/2023 Which Is Hereinafter Referred To As The Impugned Order.

68 to 69D of the Act & as such provisions of sec 115BBE are not applicable. Moreover, the taxes on such income declared had been duly paid by the assessee. 9. However, the Ld. AO without considering the detailed replies filed by the assessee passed the .assessment order dated 27.09.2021 u/s 143(3) of the Act and in the assessment order

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

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

87,54,841/- representing sale proceeds 19 of equity shares held by the assessee for more than 12 months by invoking the provisions of section 68

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

87,54,841/- representing sale proceeds 19 of equity shares held by the assessee for more than 12 months by invoking the provisions of section 68

SH. KRISHAN KUMAR,KHANNA vs. DCIT, CC-1, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

87,90,988/- Silver 6,69,384/- Diamond 2,75,981.62/- Cash in hand 2,63,646.38/- Total 100,00,000/- 100,00,000/- 28. As regards the provisions of 115BBE of the IT Act. 1961, the same is as under: - 175-Chd-2023– Shri Krishan Kumar, Khanna 4 "Tax on income referred to in section 68

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

INCOME TAX OFFICER, CHANDIGARH vs. SANBIR SINGH, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

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

section 68 of the Act, deeming provisions postulates that it is possible that the assessee may circulate its own unaccounted money in the shape of bogus persons and therefore legal onus has been created. What is relevant is the identity, creditworthiness of the depositor and genuineness of the transaction. All these three conditions have been established and onus

SH. RAJNEESH THAKUR,LUDHIANA vs. ACIT, C-VII, LUDHIANA

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Smt.Annapurna Guptaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1565/Chd/2018 िनधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year : 2011-12

68 in this regard and reliance was also placed on the following decisions in support of the contention that under section 68of the Act addition can be made only in respect of advances received in the year itself and not that received in earlier years. •Dy. CIT v. Amod Petrochem

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

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

87,00,65,774.95 September2012 21,68,00,252.81 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

RACHIT AGGARWAL (PROP.) ASHOK KUMAR GUPTA & CO.,LUDHIANA vs. ITO, WARD II(2), LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

87,95,000/- being the amount of cash deposited in bank out of business receipts invoking section 68 r.w.s

SH. NARESH CHAUHAN,SHIMLA vs. ACIT, CC-II, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the addition so made is hereby directed to be deleted and the ground of appeal is allowed

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

section 68 of the Income tax Act.” 11 28. Briefly the facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income on 30/11/2014 declaring total income of Rs. 21,87

SH. NARESH CHAUHAN,SHIMLA vs. DCIT, CC-II, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the addition so made is hereby directed to be deleted and the ground of appeal is allowed

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

section 68 of the Income tax Act.” 11 28. Briefly the facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income on 30/11/2014 declaring total income of Rs. 21,87

DY. CIT, CIRCLE, PATIALA, PATIALA vs. BHAWANI INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD., MANDI GOBINDGARH

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed whereas, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

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

87,68,257/- alleged to be bogus purchases made by the assessee. 5. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), while deciding the appeal vide his order dated 22.06.2024 deleted the additions on first three grounds and sustained the addition made by the Learned Assessing Officer on account of alleged bogus purchases. The Department is in appeal against the order

BHAWANI INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,MANDI GOBINDGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE, PATIALA

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed whereas, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

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

87,68,257/- alleged to be bogus purchases made by the assessee. 5. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), while deciding the appeal vide his order dated 22.06.2024 deleted the additions on first three grounds and sustained the addition made by the Learned Assessing Officer on account of alleged bogus purchases. The Department is in appeal against the order

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

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

DCIT CC-1, LUDHIANA vs. M/S OSWAL FASHION (P) LTD., LUDHIANA

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

87,500/-. The return was processed under section 143(1) and no notice under section 143(2) was issued. The assessment stood concluded as on the date of search conducted on 10.05.2012. In response to notice under section 153A, the assessee filed the return reiterating the same income. 6. During the course of assessment under section

DCIT CC-1, LUDHIANA vs. M/S OSWAL FASHION (P) LTD., LUDHIANA

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

87,500/-. The return was processed under section 143(1) and no notice under section 143(2) was issued. The assessment stood concluded as on the date of search conducted on 10.05.2012. In response to notice under section 153A, the assessee filed the return reiterating the same income. 6. During the course of assessment under section

M/S JAIN AMAR CLOTHING PVT. LTD.,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-III, LUDHIANA

In the result, the ground no

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

68 of the Act. As against the returned income of Rs. 8,85,15,010/-, the assessed income was determined at Rs. 37,11,61,260/- by bringing to tax the whole of the share premium amounting to Rs. 28,26,46,250/-. 4. Being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before