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 of the Act, being unexplained cash receipts that do not fall within the definition of "income from other sources". v) M/s SVS Oils Mills Vs The ACIT on 26.3.2019 in the High court of Judicature at Madras Wherein it is stated that there is a series of five provisions viz., Section 69- Unexplained investments. Section 69A-Unexplained money

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 of the Act, being unexplained cash receipts that do not fall within the definition of "income from other sources". (v) M/s SVS Oils Mills Vs The ACIT on 26.3.2019 in the High court of Judicature at Madras Wherein it is stated that there is a series of five provisions viz.. Section 69-Unexplained investments, Section 69A-Unexplained money

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. KULWANT SINGH, MOHALI

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing or any entry in the books of account or other documents or transactions found in the course of a search under section 132, which has— (A) not been recorded on or before the date of search in the books of account or other documents maintained in the normal course relating

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. PARAMJIT SINGH, MOHALI

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing or any entry in the books of account or other documents or transactions found in the course of a search under section 132, which has— (A) not been recorded on or before the date of search in the books of account or other documents maintained in the normal course relating

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. MANJIT KAUR, CHANDIGARH

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing or any entry in the books of account or other documents or transactions found in the course of a search under section 132, which has— (A) not been recorded on or before the date of search in the books of account or other documents maintained in the normal course relating

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. JASWANT KAUR, MOHALI

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing or any entry in the books of account or other documents or transactions found in the course of a search under section 132, which has— (A) not been recorded on or before the date of search in the books of account or other documents maintained in the normal course relating

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. KULWANT SINGH, MOHALI

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing or any entry in the books of account or other documents or transactions found in the course of a search under section 132, which has— (A) not been recorded on or before the date of search in the books of account or other documents maintained in the normal course relating

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. PARAMJIT SINGH, MOHALI

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing or any entry in the books of account or other documents or transactions found in the course of a search under section 132, which has— (A) not been recorded on or before the date of search in the books of account or other documents maintained in the normal course relating

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. JASWANT KAUR, MOHALI

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing or any entry in the books of account or other documents or transactions found in the course of a search under section 132, which has— (A) not been recorded on or before the date of search in the books of account or other documents maintained in the normal course relating

INCOME TAX OFFICER, PARWANOO vs. DEEPAK KUMAR, NAHAN

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

68, section 69, section 69A, section 69B, section 69C and section 69D of the Act shows that for invoking such provisions, the learned Assessing Officer shall reach a conclusion that the assessee has not offered any explanation about the nature and source of the unexplained money

M/S FAMINA KNIT FABS,LUDHIANA vs. ACIT, C-3, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

unexplained expenditure which is deemed to be the income of the assessee shall not be allowed as a deduction under any head of income.] SECTION 115BBE [3052][Tax on income referred to in section 68 or section 69 or section 69A or section 69B or section 69C or section 69D. [3052]["(1) Where the total income of an assessee

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)

unexplained investment in hospital renovation of Rs. 25,00,000/-. The Ld. Assessing Officer accepted the returned income after due verification of the books of accounts and relevant documents. However, the PCIT, in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under section 263, set aside the assessment order, holding that the AO failed to examine the nature of the surrendered income and erroneously

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 or section 69 or section 69A or section 69B or section 69C or section 69D and reflected in the return of income furnished under section 139;" The section 115BBE referred the section of 69, 69A, 69B, 69C, these sections speaks about the unexplained investment/ expenditure etc. (i) This Section is applicable where assessee's income is recorded in books

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)

68 of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the sum of Rs.35,00,000/- is treated as unexplained ;ash credit and added to the total income of the assessee. Accordingly tax on such unexplained income is computed as per the provisions of section 115BBE of the Act. ITA 455/CHD/2023 & C.O. 2/CHD/2023 A.Y. 2018-19 13 14.1 The Department has not been

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)

unexplained investment as deemed income u/s 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. SECTION 68 vs. 69 The AR has contended that the addition in capital account is not covered u/s 69 and there is no justification in accordance with provisions of law to assess the same as deemed income u/s 69 of Income Tax Act 1961. A show-cause

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.

unexplained credit u/s 68 and invoked the provisions of section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act. 3.1 It was the contention of the assessee before the Assessing Officer that he has furnished the confirmations of the lenders, alongwith their PAN Numbers, copy of the relevant Bank statement of the lender and copy of their ITRs and, thus, according

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)

section 68 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act on surmises and conjectures and ignoring the documents and details tax audit report submitted on record; 3. initiating proceedings u/s 271AAC of the Act; 4. charging interest u/s 234B, C and D of the Act. 3. The facts of the case are that the assessee deals in wholesale trade of karyana goods

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

unexplained credits relating to the impugned year only as incomes as interpreted in various decisions of Hon’ble High Courts pointed out by Ld.Counsel for the assessee before us which the Revenue has been unable to distinguish.For this reason alone the addition made under section 68 of the said advances of Rs. 61,00000 is liable to be deleted. Further

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 Income Tax Act in respect of unsecured loan received by the assessee and further an addition of Rs.1,63,01,000/- made by the AO on account of unexplained share application money