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

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

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

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

89,140/-) 1.2 That the learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the protective additions made by the AO on account of opening capital balance amounting Rs. 80,55,462/- on substantive basis ignoring that the same has already been added to income of assessee of rearlieryears upon re-assessment u/s 148. (Tax Effect-Same

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

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

section 68 by relying on\nvarious decisions like N.R. Portfolio Pvt. Ltd., A Govindarajulu Mudaliar Vs. CIT 205\nITR 802 (SC), Full Bench decision of Sophia Finance Ltd. 205 ITR 98 (Del), Nova\nPromoters Finlease (P) Ltd. 342 ITR 169 (Del), CIT Vs. Nipun Builders Ltd. 350 ITR 407\nand held that mere issuance of cheque and providing bank

ITO, LUDHIANA vs. SH. PARDEEP AGGARWAL, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2010-11

89,43,383/- by disallowing the exemption under section 10(38) of the Act at Rs.2,67,55,708/- claimed by the assessee. The Assessing Officer is not justified in invoking the provisions of section 68

JT. CIT (OSD), (E), C-2, CHANDIGARH vs. CH. LEKH RAJ EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST, YAMUNANAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sanjay Gargआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 717/Chd/2019 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13

89,04,300/- to the income of the assessee as deemed income u/s 68 of the Act. In appeal, the Ld. CIT(A), however, deleted the additions so made by the Assessing Officer while relying upon the decision of the Tribunal dated 22.12.2015 (supra) in the own case of the assessee. The relevant part of the order of the Tribunal

SH. MARTIN EKKA S/O SH. LALSAY EKKA,PANCHKULA vs. ITO, WARD -1, PANCHKULA

In the result, the ground no

Bench: SH. SANJAY GARG (Judicial Member)

68, Shiv Shakti Colony, Pinjore. "थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AAEPE4364R अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee by : Smt. Neelam Dhiman, C.A. राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue by : Shri Dharamvir, JCIT, Sr.DR सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 26.03.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement : 27.03.2024 आदेश/ORDER The present appeal has been

NIRMALA RANI L/H OF SH. AZAD SINGH,PINJORE vs. ITO, WARD -1, , PANCHKULA

In the result, Ground No. 2 of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Appeal Is Finally Heard & Disposed Of.

68, Panchkula Shiv Shakti Colony, Pinjore-134102 "ायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AJBPS8427P अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ"/Respondent Assessee by : Smt. Neelam Dhiman, CA Revenue by : Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 09/10/2024 Date of Pronouncement : 26/11/2024 Order PER VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, A.M. : This is an appeal filed by the Assessee against the order

M/S GALLEY FINANCIERS & PROPERTY CONSULTANTS PVT. LTD.,PATIALA vs. ITO, PATIALA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt.Diva Singh & Smt.Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.51/Chd/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11

89,211/-. 2. That the CIT(A) has grossly erred in law and on facts in adjudicating all the ground of appeal raised before him and has also erred in not considering the case law relied on by the appellant. 3. That the CIT(A) has in view of the facts and circumstances of the case erred on facts

SH.RAJINDER MITTAL,PANCHKULA vs. ACIT, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is therefore allowed in above terms

68 did not apply to assessee, along with supporting documentary evidence, but Ld. CIT (A) ignored it. So, this addition is highly unjustified. Therefore, the addition of Rs.5,00,000/- is prayed to be deleted. 5. Charging interest under section 234 A, 234 B and 234 C are not warranted due to the facts of the case

JEEWAN NATH JAGAN NATH,VPO KUNIHAR, HATKOT vs. DCIT ACIT, CIRCLE PARWANOO

Appeal is allowed

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

89,46,883/- for October 2016 and Rs. 50,58,719/- for 01.11.2016 to 08.11.2016) represented inflated cash receipts. This amount was added under Section 68

SH. BALJIT SINGH,LUDHIANA vs. PR. CIT, LUDHIANA -1, LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

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

68 with regard to unsecured loans and payment of interest thereon as a consequence thereof expenditure of Rs. 1,32,97,887/- has remained unexplained. The other issue dealt by him in para 4 & 5(supra) of the impugned order stands dealt with in fresh assessment order dt. 27/03/2023-i.e; the consequential order passed in pursuance to order under section

M/S DIN DAYAL PURSOTAM LAL,SIRSA vs. PR.CIT, ROHTAK

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

section 68 of the Act and as such no fault can be found with the order of the Tribunal which has endorsed the decision of the C1T(A). iii) 89

M/S DIN DAYAL PURSOTAM LAL,SIRSA vs. PR.CIT, ROHTAK

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

section 68 of the Act and as such no fault can be found with the order of the Tribunal which has endorsed the decision of the C1T(A). iii) 89

M/S DIN DAYAL PURSOTAM LAL,SIRSA vs. PR.CIT, ROHTAK

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

section 68 of the Act and as such no fault can be found with the order of the Tribunal which has endorsed the decision of the C1T(A). iii) 89

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3), LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA vs. SHREE BALAJI PROCESSORS, LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed whereas, the 29

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Dr Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 499/Chd/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 The Ito, Vs. Shree Balaji Processors, बनाम Ward-1(3), Tajpur Road, Ludhiana Opp. Central Jail, Ludhiana 141010 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Actfs8428B अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent & C.O. No. 09/Chd/2024 ( In आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 499/Chd/2023) "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Shree Balaji Processors, Vs. The Ito, बनाम Tajpur Road, Ward-1(3), Opp. Central Jail, Ludhiana Ludhiana 141010 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Actfs8428B अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent ( Physical Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Smt. Kusum Bansal, Cit Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 26.06.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20.08.2024

section 69A of the Act in respect of cash deposited during the demonetization period which is represented by sales is required. In view of the facts quoted above, the addition made of Rs.6,89,67,208/- u/s 69A of the Act is hereby deleted and accordingly ground 3 is allowed. 5.10. In ground 4, the appellant tends to challenge

ACIT, LUDHIANA vs. M/S K LAL OVERSEAS PVT. LTD., LUDHIANA

The appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

Section 36(1)(iii) 4. That she further gravely erred in upholding the disallowance of Rs. 1,18,024/- out of interest account made by the Learned Assessing Officer in respect of certain interest free advances made by the appellant company 5. That she further gravely erred in upholding the disallowance of Rs. 5,68,361/- representing

M/S K.LALL OVERSEAS,LUDHIANA vs. ACIT,CIRCLE-6, LUDHIANA

The appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

Section 36(1)(iii) 4. That she further gravely erred in upholding the disallowance of Rs. 1,18,024/- out of interest account made by the Learned Assessing Officer in respect of certain interest free advances made by the appellant company 5. That she further gravely erred in upholding the disallowance of Rs. 5,68,361/- representing