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

JATIN GARG,CHANDIGARH vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC-2,, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

transferred to Sh. Sahil Singla. During assessment proceedings and search operation in the cases of Sh. Sanjit Singh Randhawa and Sh. Sahil Singla, it was held that Sh. Sanjit Singh Randhawa and Sh. Sahil Singla invested the money taken from different person, into Sand Mining business. The entire modus operandi was designed in a such away so that Sh. Sahil

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

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

SMT. TEENA GARG,CHANDIGARH vs. PCIT, PANCHKULA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Transfer Pricing\nOfficer, as the case may be, shall be deemed to be erroneous in so\nfar as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, if, in the opinion\nof the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or\nPrincipal Commissioner or Commissioner,-\n\n(a) the order is passed without making inquiries or verification which\nshould have been

SHRI KRISHAN KUMAR JALAN,BANGALORE vs. ITO, W-1, SIRSA

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

transferred to the\nbeneficiaries at a very nominal price mostly off line through preferential\nallotment or offline sale to save STT.\n2.12 The beneficiary individuals were made to hold the shares for a\nminimum period of one year, the statutory period after which LTCG is\nexempt under the provisions of Section 10(38) of the Income Tax Act,\n1961.\n2.13

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

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

SCOTT EDIL PHARMACIA LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH

money lending. She,\ntherefore, has submitted that both the lower authorities were justified in treating the\namount received by the assessee as deemed dividend in the hands of the assessee. She\nhas further contended that the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in directing the AO to add\nonly the peak credits of the year instead of the entire advances

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

BABLI DEVI,VILLAGE NARLA, P.O. KUNNU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, BHIULI

The appeal stand partly allowed in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.157/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Ms. Babli Devi Ito, Mandi (D/O Mool Singh) बनाम/ District Mandi Village Narla, P.O.Kunnu, Tehsil Padhar Hp-175001. Vs. District Mandi (Hp) 175012 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Blepd-5225-Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Gaurav Thakur, (Ca) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Vivek Vardhan (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08-04-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21-04-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18 Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 07-09-2023 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S. 147 R.W.S. 144B Of The Act On 27-03-2022. The Sole Grievance Of The Assessee Is Confirmation Of Addition Of Cash Deposit For Rs.32.53 Lacs. Having Heard Rival Submissions & Upon Perusal Of Case Records, The Appeal Is Disposed-Off As Under.

unexplained money u/s 69A. The Ld. CIT(A) did not admit the appeal for want of condonation of 118 days. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us. 3. In our considered opinion, having regard to the background of the assessee, the delay should have been condoned by Ld. CIT(A). Nevertheless, the document on record would show that

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHANDIGARH vs. SARAF THE JEWELLERS, PUNJAB

Appeal stand dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.1232/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22) Saraf The Jeweller Dcit / Acit (Central)-2 बनाम/ Sco 45, Pocket No.1 C.R. Building Nac Showroom, Manimajra Himalaya Marg, Vs. Chandigarh – 160101 Sector-17E, Chandigarh "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Adafs-2345-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.1594/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22) Dcit / Acit (Central)-2 Saraf The Jeweller बनाम/ C.R. Building Sco 45, Pocket No.1 Himalaya Marg, Nac Showroom, Manimajra Vs. Sector-17E, Chandigarh Chandigarh – 160101 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Adafs-2345-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) Assessee By : Sh. Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) & Sh. Sahil Ratra (Advocate) – Ld. Ars Revenue By : Sh. Abhishek Pal Garg (Cit) & Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Drs सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12.02.2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 12.03.2026 : आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench

prices in the open market. The department had verified the franchise status of M/s KLG Jewellers during the course of search itself. Therefore, M/s KLG Jewellers could not be said to be an independent retailer. Accordingly, the allegation of Ld. AO had no foundation. Further, there was no unexplained cash credit in terms of Sec.68. The provisions would be attracted

SARAF THE JEWELLER, CHANDIGARH,CHANDIGARH vs. THE DCIT/ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE- 2, CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

Appeal stand dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.1232/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22) Saraf The Jeweller Dcit / Acit (Central)-2 बनाम/ Sco 45, Pocket No.1 C.R. Building Nac Showroom, Manimajra Himalaya Marg, Vs. Chandigarh – 160101 Sector-17E, Chandigarh "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Adafs-2345-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.1594/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22) Dcit / Acit (Central)-2 Saraf The Jeweller बनाम/ C.R. Building Sco 45, Pocket No.1 Himalaya Marg, Nac Showroom, Manimajra Vs. Sector-17E, Chandigarh Chandigarh – 160101 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Adafs-2345-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) Assessee By : Sh. Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) & Sh. Sahil Ratra (Advocate) – Ld. Ars Revenue By : Sh. Abhishek Pal Garg (Cit) & Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Drs सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12.02.2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 12.03.2026 : आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench

prices in the open market. The department had verified the franchise status of M/s KLG Jewellers during the course of search itself. Therefore, M/s KLG Jewellers could not be said to be an independent retailer. Accordingly, the allegation of Ld. AO had no foundation. Further, there was no unexplained cash credit in terms of Sec.68. The provisions would be attracted

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

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

The appeals of the revenue are treated as dismissed

money 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

money lending. She,\ntherefore, has submitted that both the lower authorities were justified in treating the\namount received by the assessee as deemed dividend in the hands of the assessee. She\nhas further contended that the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in directing the AO to add\nonly the peak credits of the year instead of the entire advances

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