MAXPORT INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

transferred to give effect to commercial transactions\nshould be kept outside the ambit of s.2(22)(e). He in this respect has placed reliance upon\nthe following case laws:\na. Pradip Kumar Malhotra V. CIT [2001] 338 ITR 538 (Cal HC).\nb. DCIT vs. Lakra Brothers, 2007, 106 TTJ 0250, Chandigarh ITAT.\nc. Bagmane Constructions

SHRI HARI & CO OWNERS,KAITHAL vs. PR. CIT, CHANDIGARH -1, ROHTAK

In the result, both the above appeals of the Assessee are dismissed

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

unexplained investment and added to your income. 3. In response to the above said show cause notice, the assesee filed its submissions on 26.11.2019 and 18.12.2019 respectively and have relied upon the various judgments of different Hon'ble Courts of India in support of his contention and the same are detailed as under: 1. ACIT Vs Dharia Construction

SHRI HARI & CO OWNERS,KAITHAL vs. PR. CIT, CHANDIGARH -1, ROHTAK

In the result, both the above appeals of the Assessee are dismissed

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

unexplained investment and added to your income. 3. In response to the above said show cause notice, the assesee filed its submissions on 26.11.2019 and 18.12.2019 respectively and have relied upon the various judgments of different Hon'ble Courts of India in support of his contention and the same are detailed as under: 1. ACIT Vs Dharia Construction

SCOTT EDIL ADVANCE RESEARCH LABORATORIES AND EDUCATION LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH

transferred to give effect to commercial transactions\nshould be kept outside the ambit of s.2(22)(e). He in this respect has placed reliance upon\nthe following case laws:\na. Pradip Kumar Malhotra V. CIT [2001] 338 ITR 538 (Cal HC).\nb. DCIT vs. Lakra Brothers, 2007, 106 TTJ 0250, Chandigarh ITAT.\nc. Bagmane Constructions

DAMANDEEP KAUR,MOHALI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL CIRCLE-2), CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed

Unexplained Household Expenses\"\nwithout properly appreciating the facts of the case, specifically:\n\na. That the appellant was present in India only for 117 days during the relevant\nprevious year, as affirmed in the order passed under Section 10(3) of the Black\nMoney (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015.\nGiven that she resided outside

DAMANDEEP KAUR,MOHALI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL CIRCLE-2), CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed

Unexplained Household Expenses\"\nwithout properly appreciating the facts of the case, specifically:\na. That the appellant was present in India only for 117 days during the relevant\nprevious year, as affirmed in the order passed under Section 10(3) of the Black\nMoney (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015.\nGiven that she resided outside India

DAMANDEEP KAUR,MOHALI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL CIRCLE-2), CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed

Unexplained Household Expenses\"\nwithout properly appreciating the facts of the case, specifically:\na. That the appellant was present in India only for 117 days during the relevant\nprevious year, as affirmed in the order passed under Section 10(3) of the Black\nMoney (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015.\nGiven that she resided outside India

SH. SURINDER KUMAR,RAJPURA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE, PATIALA

In the result, all the three captioned appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Gargआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 433 /Chd/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 बनाम Shri Mohinder Kumar, The Acit, #371, Dalima Vihar, Circle, Rajpaura 140401 Patiala Punjab "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aenpk2131D अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

unexplained investment u/s 69-which is arbitrary and unjustified. 5. That the appellant craves leave to add or amend the grounds of appeal before the appeal is finally heard or disposed off. 4. Ground Nos 1 & 2: The Assessee vide Ground Nos. 1 & 2 has contested the action of the Assessing Officer in making the addition

SH. MOHINDER KUMAR,RAJPURA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE, PATIALA

In the result, all the three captioned appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Gargआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 433 /Chd/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 बनाम Shri Mohinder Kumar, The Acit, #371, Dalima Vihar, Circle, Rajpaura 140401 Patiala Punjab "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aenpk2131D अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

unexplained investment u/s 69-which is arbitrary and unjustified. 5. That the appellant craves leave to add or amend the grounds of appeal before the appeal is finally heard or disposed off. 4. Ground Nos 1 & 2: The Assessee vide Ground Nos. 1 & 2 has contested the action of the Assessing Officer in making the addition

SH. PAWAN KUMAR,RAJPURA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE, PATIALA

In the result, all the three captioned appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Gargआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 433 /Chd/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 बनाम Shri Mohinder Kumar, The Acit, #371, Dalima Vihar, Circle, Rajpaura 140401 Patiala Punjab "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aenpk2131D अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

unexplained investment u/s 69-which is arbitrary and unjustified. 5. That the appellant craves leave to add or amend the grounds of appeal before the appeal is finally heard or disposed off. 4. Ground Nos 1 & 2: The Assessee vide Ground Nos. 1 & 2 has contested the action of the Assessing Officer in making the addition

SH. LACHHMAN DASS BANSAL,BARNALA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, PATIALA

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

transferred to Central Circle, Patiala vide notice, dated 21.10.20202. The assessee also requested vide letter, dated 04.11.2020 for copies of the statements recorded during survey, stock list as drawn and other documents. Thereafter, for the first time after more than 3 years, the notice was received from the Assessing Officer, Central Circle, Patiala, and the request was made

DCIT, CC 1, CHANDIGARH , CHANDIGARH vs. SANJEEV AGGARWAL , CHANDIGARH

The appeals of the revenue are treated as dismissed

transferred to give effect to commercial transactions\nshould be kept outside the ambit of s.2(22)(e). He in this respect has placed reliance upon\nthe following case laws:\na. Pradip Kumar Malhotra V. CIT [2001] 338 ITR 538 (Cal HC).\nb. DCIT vs. Lakra Brothers, 2007, 106 TTJ 0250, Chandigarh ITAT.\nc. Bagmane Constructions

SHRI BALRAM KRISHAN,CHANDIGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

transferred to give effect to commercial transactions\nshould be kept outside the ambit of s.2(22)(e). He in this respect has placed reliance upon\nthe following case laws:\na. Pradip Kumar Malhotra V. CIT [2001] 338 ITR 538 (Cal HC).\nb. DCIT vs. Lakra Brothers, 2007, 106 TTJ 0250, Chandigarh ITAT.\nc. Bagmane Constructions

SANJEEV AGGARWAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH

transferred to give effect to commercial transactions\nshould be kept outside the ambit of s.2(22)(e). He in this respect has placed reliance upon\nthe following case laws:\na. Pradip Kumar Malhotra V. CIT [2001] 338 ITR 538 (Cal HC).\nb. DCIT vs. Lakra Brothers, 2007, 106 TTJ 0250, Chandigarh ITAT.\nc. Bagmane Constructions

SCOTT EDIL ADVANCE RESEARCH LABORATORIES AND EDUCATION LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH

transferred to give effect to commercial transactions\nshould be kept outside the ambit of s.2(22)(e). He in this respect has placed reliance upon\nthe following case laws:\na. Pradip Kumar Malhotra V. CIT [2001] 338 ITR 538 (Cal HC).\nb. DCIT vs. Lakra Brothers, 2007, 106 TTJ 0250, Chandigarh ITAT.\nc. Bagmane Constructions

SHRI BALRAM KRISHAN,CHANDIGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

price fluctuations. The reliance in\nthis respect can be placed on the following decisions:\n“(i) [Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Kolkata v. Narula\nEducational Trust [2021] 126 taxmann.com 158 (Kolkata - Trib.)\n(ii) Champaklal S. Kasat v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Cent. Cir. 1(3),\nAhmedabad [2017] 82 taxmann.com 243 (Ahmedabad - Trib

JANTA LAND PROMOTERS PVT LTD,MOHALI vs. THE PRINICIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,CHANDIGARH-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Pricing / MAT. 3. The Ld. AR had submitted that pursuant to the show cause notice issued by the Ld. PCIT the assessee had submitted the reply, which was reproduced at page 8 of the impugned order as under: 1) Issue No.2.1 at para 2 of the show cause notice: 2.1 The Assessing Officer(AO) wrongly allowed the Development Expense provision

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SANJEEV AGGARWAL , CHANDIGARH

price fluctuations. The reliance in\nthis respect can be placed on the following decisions:\n“(i) [Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Kolkata v. Narula\nEducational Trust [2021] 126 taxmann.com 158 (Kolkata - Trib.)\n(ii) Champaklal S. Kasat v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Cent. Cir. 1(3),\nAhmedabad [2017] 82 taxmann.com 243 (Ahmedabad - Trib