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

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u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 with respect to cash withdrawals without any finding doubting the source of funds withdrawn. 3.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, NEW LIBRA KOTHI, RAILWAY ROAD, SIRHIND vs. BHAGWAN DASS, AMLOH ROAD, MANDI GOBINDGARH

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

92,68,077/-, the GST data reflected purchases of Rs.40,68,62,366/- there is a\ndifference of Rs.1,24,05,711/-. Even after adding insurance entries of Rs.22,798/-, α\ndifference of Rs.1,23,82,913/- still remained unexplained. The AO observed that\nledger accounts received from suppliers in response to section

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 Act. The following are the above Judgments: i. P. Refinery (P) Ltd. vs. ACIT [2015] 174 TTJ 41 (Chandigarh ITAT) ii. Principal CIT vs. N. C. Cables Ltd. [2017] 98 CCH 10 (Delhi) iii. CIT vs. Shokeen Properties (P) Ltd. [2015] 92

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 Act. The following are the above Judgments: i. P. Refinery (P) Ltd. vs. ACIT [2015] 174 TTJ 41 (Chandigarh ITAT) ii. Principal CIT vs. N. C. Cables Ltd. [2017] 98 CCH 10 (Delhi) iii. CIT vs. Shokeen Properties (P) Ltd. [2015] 92

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 Act. The following are the above Judgments: i. P. Refinery (P) Ltd. vs. ACIT [2015] 174 TTJ 41 (Chandigarh ITAT) ii. Principal CIT vs. N. C. Cables Ltd. [2017] 98 CCH 10 (Delhi) iii. CIT vs. Shokeen Properties (P) Ltd. [2015] 92

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 Act. The following are the above Judgments: i. P. Refinery (P) Ltd. vs. ACIT [2015] 174 TTJ 41 (Chandigarh ITAT) ii. Principal CIT vs. N. C. Cables Ltd. [2017] 98 CCH 10 (Delhi) iii. CIT vs. Shokeen Properties (P) Ltd. [2015] 92

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 Act. The following are the above Judgments: i. P. Refinery (P) Ltd. vs. ACIT [2015] 174 TTJ 41 (Chandigarh ITAT) ii. Principal CIT vs. N. C. Cables Ltd. [2017] 98 CCH 10 (Delhi) iii. CIT vs. Shokeen Properties (P) Ltd. [2015] 92

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 Act. The following are the above Judgments: i. P. Refinery (P) Ltd. vs. ACIT [2015] 174 TTJ 41 (Chandigarh ITAT) ii. Principal CIT vs. N. C. Cables Ltd. [2017] 98 CCH 10 (Delhi) iii. CIT vs. Shokeen Properties (P) Ltd. [2015] 92

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

EASTMAN INTERNATIONAL,LUDHIANA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

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

92,907/- under Section 80IA, supported by Form 10CCB, which certified eligibility for a deduction of Rs. 13,61,30,458/-. The AO, while framing the assessment, did not specifically disallow the deduction but increased the taxable income by the additions under Sections 68

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

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

92,324.00 August 2012 69,48,14,168.54 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

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)

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. 21,87,640/- which was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS for the reason that there were large increase in sundry creditors against reduction in business income as compared

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)

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. 21,87,640/- which was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS for the reason that there were large increase in sundry creditors against reduction in business income as compared

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)

92,45,180/- against the return income of Rs. 4,50,180/- by making addition Rs. 87,95,000/- u/s 68 of I.T.Act on account of unexplained cash credit during the A.Y. 2017-18. Now, the assessee is producing the additional evidence u/s 46A. In this regard, it is submitted that as per section

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)

68, can be initiated in the year of such credit. Moreover, it is also being mentioned here that in the A.Y. 2013-14, the then AO specifically given office note about the reference to Foreign Authorities and about remedial action to be taken on the basis of information received till that date from Singapore Authority. The assessee also claimed that

SECL INDUSTRIES LIMITED,BATHINDA vs. DCIT, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

section 68 did not apply to the case of the assessee company and, thus, the CIT (A) has ignored the binding judgment of Hon'ble Supreme in the case of Roshan Di Hatti as reported in 107 ITR 938. 4. That the Appellant craves leave to add or amend the grounds of appeal before the appeal is finally heard

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, LUDHIANA vs. MALBROS INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD, FARIDKOT

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH (Vice President), SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

68 of the Act. The AO noted that the assessee failed to prove the genuineness of transaction and credit worthiness of unsecured loan and hence he added this sum of Rs.1.50 Cr by treating the same as unexplained cash credits. The AO also taxed the same under Section 115BBE of the Act. Aggrieved the assessee preferred appeal before

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

68 of the Act on protective basis holding that substantive additions will be made after reopening of assessment for earlier years under section 147 of the Act. Thereafter, reassessment proceedings were initiated for the assessment years 2010-11 to 2013-14 and additions of Rs. 1,42,92