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)

96 of the Paperbook) wherein it was stated that section 69A of the Act was inadvertently written instead of section 69C. 2.2.19 During the appellate proceedings, all pertinent documents, and explanations regarding the receipt of funds and subsequent withdrawals for payments to farmers were duly provided. However, Ld. CIT(A) made an error by disregarding these facts

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, introduced by the Finance Act, 2012 with effect from 01.04.2013 and that the same is prospective in nature and that the same is not applicable in the preceding years. In view of our findings given above, the impugned additions are not sustainable. Therefore, we upheld the findings of the CIT(A) in deleting

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, introduced by the Finance Act, 2012 with effect from 01.04.2013 and that the same is prospective in nature and that the same is not applicable in the preceding years. In view of our findings given above, the impugned additions are not sustainable. Therefore, we upheld the findings of the CIT(A) in deleting

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, introduced by the Finance Act, 2012 with effect from 01.04.2013 and that the same is prospective in nature and that the same is not applicable in the preceding years. In view of our findings given above, the impugned additions are not sustainable. Therefore, we upheld the findings of the CIT(A) in deleting

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, introduced by the Finance Act, 2012 with effect from 01.04.2013 and that the same is prospective in nature and that the same is not applicable in the preceding years. In view of our findings given above, the impugned additions are not sustainable. Therefore, we upheld the findings of the CIT(A) in deleting

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, introduced by the Finance Act, 2012 with effect from 01.04.2013 and that the same is prospective in nature and that the same is not applicable in the preceding years. In view of our findings given above, the impugned additions are not sustainable. Therefore, we upheld the findings of the CIT(A) in deleting

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, introduced by the Finance Act, 2012 with effect from 01.04.2013 and that the same is prospective in nature and that the same is not applicable in the preceding years. In view of our findings given above, the impugned additions are not sustainable. Therefore, we upheld the findings of the CIT(A) in deleting

SHRI SATISH KUMAR,SANGRUR vs. ITO, WARD, SANGRUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee’s are allowed

section 96 of the said act. The reliance was also placed on the following case laws : • ACIT Vs. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd. as reported in 305 ITR 227(SC) • CIT vs. M/s Motilal Duli Chand 80 CCH 142 (All) • CIT Vs. Satish Kumar Agarwal 66 DTR 68

SMT. URMILA GARG,SANGRUR vs. ITO, WARD, SANGRUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee’s are allowed

section 96 of the said act. The reliance was also placed on the following case laws : • ACIT Vs. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd. as reported in 305 ITR 227(SC) • CIT vs. M/s Motilal Duli Chand 80 CCH 142 (All) • CIT Vs. Satish Kumar Agarwal 66 DTR 68

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 , LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA vs. NICE EXPORTS PRIVATE LIMITED, A-15A, PHASE-VII, FOCAL POINT, LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

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

96,119/- under section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, treating certain foreign remittances as unexplained cash credits

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA vs. NICE EXPORTS PRIVATE LIMITED, A-15 A PHASE, FOCAL POINT, LUDHIANA, FOCAL POINT, LUDHIANA

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: or at the time of hearing of appeal.

96,119/- under section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, treating certain foreign remittances as unexplained cash credits

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 , LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA vs. NICE EXPORTS PRIVATE LIMITED, A-15A, PHASE-VII,, FOCAL POINT, LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

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

96,119/- under section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, treating certain foreign remittances as unexplained cash credits

SECL INDUSTRIES LIMITED,BATHINDA vs. DCIT, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

96,00,000/- u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on account of share capital/premium received by the assessee while rejecting the contention of the assessee that the Proviso to section

SHIV SHAKTI OIL MILLS,KAITHAL, HARYANA vs. ITO, WARD-1,, KAITHAL, HARYANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Appeal Is Finally Heard & Disposed Off.

section 68 of the Act of Rs. 9,96,000/- made by the Ld. AO being alleged cash credits

SHIV SHAKTI OIL MILLS,KAITHAL, HARYANA vs. ITO, WARD-1, KAITHAL, HARYANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Appeal Is Finally Heard & Disposed Off.

section 68 of the Act of Rs. 9,96,000/- made by the Ld. AO being alleged cash credits

SHIV SHAKTI OIL MILLS,KAITHAL vs. ITO, WARD-1,, KAITHAL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Appeal Is Finally Heard & Disposed Off.

section 68 of the Act of Rs. 9,96,000/- made by the Ld. AO being alleged cash credits

ACIT, CC-2, CHANDIGARH vs. M/S TJR PROPERTIES PVT. LTD., CHANDIGARH

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

68 of the Act on surmises and conjectures. 9. That the learned CIT(A) has wrongly upheld disallowance of loss of Rs.50,231/- without discussing the same in the impugned order. 10. That the learned CIT(A) has wrongly upheld disallowance of depreciation on vehicle to the extent of Rs.5,62,672/- without any justification. 11. That the appellant craves

M/S TJR PROPERTIES PVT. LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. ACIT, CC-2, CHANDIGARH

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

68 of the Act on surmises and conjectures. 9. That the learned CIT(A) has wrongly upheld disallowance of loss of Rs.50,231/- without discussing the same in the impugned order. 10. That the learned CIT(A) has wrongly upheld disallowance of depreciation on vehicle to the extent of Rs.5,62,672/- without any justification. 11. That the appellant craves

M/S BASSI STEELS LTD.,MOHALI vs. DCIT, MOHALI

Bench: Shri. Sanjay Garg, Judicial, Member & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2005-06

section 68 of the Act and added the amount of Rs. 1,18,50,000/- to the income of the assessee and a sum of Rs. 2,96