ANUPAM,BARNALA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BARNALA

In the result, Assessee’s appeal is allowed

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

68, section 69, section 69A, section 69B, section 69C or section 69D, if such income is not covered under clause (a), the income-tax payable shall be the aggregate of — (1) the amount of income-tax calculated on the income referred to in clause (a) and clause (b), at the rate of sixty per cent.; and (ii) the amount

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.

section 68 of the Act can be considered for set-off against losses under various heads of income. After examining

RAJIV KUMAR GOYAL,DHURI vs. DCIT, CC-2, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee 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 Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Dated 03/02/2023 In Appeal No. 10850/2018-19/It/Cit(A)-5/Ldh/2021-22 For 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. 03/02/2023 Which Is Hereiafter Referred To As The Impugned Order. Factual Matrix 3. The Assessee Had For The Relevant Year I.E; A.Y. 2019-20 Was Also Engaged In The Same Business I.E; Manufacturing Of Pvc Pipes & Had Filed

68, section 69, section 69A, section 69B, section 69C or section 69D, if such income is not covered under clause (a), the income-tax payable shall be the aggregate of- (i) the amount of income-tax calculated on the income referred to in clause (a) and clause (b), at the rate of sixty per cent; and (ii) the amount

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

68 of the Act and computed the Tax liability under the provisions of the section 115BBE of the Act." 7.7 As regards, the charging of income tax @ 60% invoking the provisions of section 115BBE on the income declared by 175-Chd-2023– Shri Krishan Kumar, Khanna 18 the Assessee in its return of income. The Assessee has already made

M/S SABER PAPER LIMITED,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, LUDHIANA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and the appeal of the

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.663 & 664/Chd/2017 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years :2012-13 & 2013-14

68,965/- on account of disallowance of depreciation on machinery. 4. That the Ld. CIT(A)-5,Ludhiana failed to appreciate the facts and erred in confirming addition made by Ld. Assessing Officer of Rs. 2,43,107,918/- on substantative basis on account of the funds invested by M/s Sigma Fincap Private Limited in appellant company. 5. That

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, where there is a credit in the books of accounts and thus a prima facie evidence against the assessee regarding the receipt of money which the assessee is required to rebut and offer necessary explanation, for the provisions of Section 69 to be attracted in the instant case, there has to be a finding by the AO basis material

M/S JASHAN FINLEASE LTD.,KHANNA vs. DCIT, CC-1, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

set off of business losses, both current and brought forward are to be allowed as per the provisions of law. As far as the income surrendered and to be assessed u/s 69, 69A, 69B and 69C of the Act, as held above before us, the same is to be subjected to tax as per the provisions of section 115BBE

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHANDIGARH vs. WINSOME TEXTILE INDUSTRIES LTD, CHANDIGARH

Section 68 of the Act. The AO further did not\nallow the set off of the income so assessed against the brought forward losses

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)

Section 68 of the Act. The AO further did not allow the set off of the income so assessed against the brought forward losses

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, section 69A, section 69B, section 69C or section 69D, if such income is not covered under clause (a), The income tax payable shall be the aggregate of- i. the amount of income tax calculated on the income referred to in clause (a) and clause (b), at the rate of sixty per cent; and ii. the amount of income

RAV SHARAN SINGH,PATIALA vs. ACIT, C.C., PATIALA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

set off of business losses, both current and brought forward are to be allowed as per the provisions of law. As far as the income surrendered and to be assessed u/s 69, 69A, 69B and 69C of the Act, as held above before us, the same is to be subjected to tax as per the provisions of section 115BBE

SHRI HARISH SHARMA,LUDHIANA vs. ITO , LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

68, section 69, section 69A, section 69B, section 69C or section 69D, if such income is not covered under clause(a), the income-tax payable shall be the aggregate of- (i) the amount of income-tax calculated on the income referred to in clause(a) and clause(b), at the rate of sixty per cent; and (ii) the amount

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.

set off against Assessee is nephew of Karta 01.07.2017 household expenses) HUF Our Submission: The assessee during the assessment proceedings filed following documents before the Ld. AO that duly proves all three elements of section 68 i.e. genuineness, creditworthiness and identity as per details as follows: 7. IDENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE LENDER: It is submitted before your goodself

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC-1, LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA vs. SHREE GANESH EDIBLES PVT. LTD., KHANNA

The appeal stand dismissed

Bench: SHRI RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

loss making entity. Though the business was money lending, there was no justifiable explanation for claiming huge ‘other expenses’ in the audited financial statements. The lender received credit entry of Rs.50 Lacs each on 04-07-2018 & 16-07-2018 which was immediately advanced to the assessee. The circular nature of transactions cast serious doubt on genuineness of the lenders

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC-1, LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA vs. SHREE GANESH EDIBLES PVT. LTD., KHANNA

The appeal stand dismissed

Bench: SHRI RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

loss making entity. Though the business was money lending, there was no justifiable explanation for claiming huge ‘other expenses’ in the audited financial statements. The lender received credit entry of Rs.50 Lacs each on 04-07-2018 & 16-07-2018 which was immediately advanced to the assessee. The circular nature of transactions cast serious doubt on genuineness of the lenders

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)

setting aside the findings of the AO. 3. Whether on facts and circumstances, the Ld CIT(A) is justified by considering evidence in large during the course of appellate proceedings, as the same were perused and were not considered in the assessment order, as result of which an addition of Rs. 1,30,00,000/- has been deleted

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

set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals). The Tribunal had rightly deleted the additions under section 68.” 11. Respectfully following the above decisions, which, in our view, are squarely applicable on the facts of the instant case, we find that the assessee has successfully discharged the burden of proof primarily casted upon it to explain the identity and creditworthiness of share

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

set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals). The Tribunal had rightly deleted the additions under section 68.” 11. Respectfully following the above decisions, which, in our view, are squarely applicable on the facts of the instant case, we find that the assessee has successfully discharged the burden of proof primarily casted upon it to explain the identity and creditworthiness of share

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

set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals). The Tribunal had rightly deleted the additions under section 68.” 11. Respectfully following the above decisions, which, in our view, are squarely applicable on the facts of the instant case, we find that the assessee has successfully discharged the burden of proof primarily casted upon it to explain the identity and creditworthiness of share