INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, FARIDKOT, BSNL BUILDING vs. M/S VOHRA SOLVEX PVT. LTD, SADIQ ROAD

In the result, C.O. filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Krinwant Sahay

section 68 solely on basis of information received from Investigation Wing that lenders from whom assessee-company acquired loans were indulged in bogus accommodation entries, since assessee was not granted an opportunity to cross-examine persons whose statements were recorded during Investigation, Impugned addition made on basis of such investigation which was not privy to assessee were to be deleted

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, JAMMU vs. M/S MOHD ASRAF SHEIKH, JAMMU

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

bogus entries of name-lenders. • If the enquiries and investigations reveal that the identity of the creditors to be dubious or doubtful, or lack credit-worthiness, then the genuineness of the transaction would not be established. In such a case, the assessee would not have discharged the primary onus contemplated by Section 68 of the Act.” 11. In the present

SMT. SATYAWATI MARWAHA THROUGH LEGAL HEIR SH. CHANDER SHEIKHAR MARWAHA,JALANDHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal for Asstt

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

purchase/ sale of the shares through registered brokers by banking channels, D-Mat statement etc. and there is nothing to pinpoint anything against the assessees., High court held that where assessee earned LTCG on sale of shares and AO denied said claim and made additions under section 68 on ground that assessee invested in shares of penny stock companies which

SMT. SATYAWATI MARWAHA THROUGH LEGAL HEIR SH, CHANDER SHEIKHAR MARWAHA,JALANDHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal for Asstt

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

purchase/ sale of the shares through registered brokers by banking channels, D-Mat statement etc. and there is nothing to pinpoint anything against the assessees., High court held that where assessee earned LTCG on sale of shares and AO denied said claim and made additions under section 68 on ground that assessee invested in shares of penny stock companies which

YADAV RICE MILLS,MUKTSAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, BATHINDA, BATHINDA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

section 143(1), Assessing Officer could initiate reassessment proceedings subsequently on basis of information supplied by Investigation wing of department that assessee had taken bogus purchase entries from two parties. 6 I.T.A. No. 415/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-13 (ii) Backbone Projects Ltd. vs. ACIT [2021] 131 taxmann.com 80 (Gujarat) (iii) Priya Blue Industries [2021] 130 taxmann.com 492 (Gujarat

HIMALYA SPINNING MILLS,AMRITSAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- 2 (1), AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

section 115BBE of the Act will have no application so as to treat the income of the assessee as income from other sources. Hon'ble Kolkata Tribunal in the case of Associated Transport (P.) Ltd. (supra) on identical facts took the view that when cash sales are admitted and income from sales are declared as income, wherein

DCIT, CIRCLE-1, BATHINDA vs. DMR BUILDERS PVT LTD, BATHINDA

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed being devoid of merits

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Hybrid Hearing) I.T.A. Nos. 292 & 293/Asr/2024 Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18

68, of the Act for the assessment year 2016-17. 5. In view of the above facts, I have reasons to believe that amounts of Rs. 5,71,37,870/-, which was chargeable to tax in the case of the assessee for the assessment year 2016-17 has escaped assessment within the meaning of section

DCIT, CIRCLE-1, BATHINDA vs. DMR BUILDERS PVT LTD, BATHINDA

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed being devoid of merits

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Hybrid Hearing) I.T.A. Nos. 292 & 293/Asr/2024 Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18

68, of the Act for the assessment year 2016-17. 5. In view of the above facts, I have reasons to believe that amounts of Rs. 5,71,37,870/-, which was chargeable to tax in the case of the assessee for the assessment year 2016-17 has escaped assessment within the meaning of section

H. N. AGRI SERVICE PRIVATE LIMITED,SRINAGAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAMMU

In the result, the appeal of the revenue bearing ITA No

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

purchasing of fresh fruit. For the impugned assessment year, the advance was returned back by the farmers after the declaration of demonetisation. The advance amount was returned back to the assessee. The assessee had deposited the cash in bank account in Jammu & Kashmir Bank, Branch Lassipora Pulwama, Kashmir and Azadpur, New Delhi Branch. The total amount was deposited in bank

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAMMU vs. M/S HN AGRI SERVE PRIVATE LIMITED, SRINAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue bearing ITA No

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

purchasing of fresh fruit. For the impugned assessment year, the advance was returned back by the farmers after the declaration of demonetisation. The advance amount was returned back to the assessee. The assessee had deposited the cash in bank account in Jammu & Kashmir Bank, Branch Lassipora Pulwama, Kashmir and Azadpur, New Delhi Branch. The total amount was deposited in bank

M/S BLUE CITY TOWNSHIP & COLONIZERS,AMRITSAR. vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,, AMRITSAR.

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

bogus entities, no addition could be made on that account by invoking section 68. 20. Per contra, the Ld. DR supported the impugned order. He contended that the AO observed that the amounts which the assessee paid over and above the prices mentioned in the registries of purchase

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1 (1), JALANDHAR vs. SHRI ANIL KUMAR WASON, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue bearing ITA No

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No. 164/Asr/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-15

section 143(2), notice was issued by the ld. AO. In scrutiny assessment, assessee filed relevant documents before the ld. AO specially all the Sundry Creditors of the assessee amounts to Rs.5,68,93,270/-. The assessment was completed u/s. 143(3). The ld. AO made an addition amount of Rs.5,68.93,270/- I.T.A. No.164/Asr/2023 3 Assessment Year

MESERS GANESH RICE MILLS,MUKTSAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-II, BATHINDA

In the result the appeal of the assessee ITA No

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

68 r.w.s 115BBE of the Act) 3. Applying GP rate of 11.87% (But the NA addition of Rs. 2,72,17,362, were covered by the AO in addition of Rs. 15,54,20,000/- and no separate addition was made) Disallowance of expenses (1/4th and 4. 11,21,118 Ground Allowed NA 1/5th) as debited

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, AMRITSAR vs. SHRI BHUPINDER SINGH. M/S NOVELTY SWEETS, AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

bogus losses to be set off with the amount of surrendered income when it is a clear cut fact that accounts of the assessee were not maintained properly? 4. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law by not appreciating that the assessee had incurred losses in the relevant year only

SH.GAURAV AGGARWAL,GURDAS PUR vs. DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

bogus and added to total income of the assesses treating the same as unexplained cash credits u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.” 8. We heard the rival submission and considered the documents available in the record. The transaction was made through the share of M/s Kappac Pharma I.T.A. Nos.32 to 35/Asr/2019 16 A.Ys

SH. RAMAN KUMAR AGGARWAL,GURDAS PUR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

bogus and added to total income of the assesses treating the same as unexplained cash credits u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.” 8. We heard the rival submission and considered the documents available in the record. The transaction was made through the share of M/s Kappac Pharma I.T.A. Nos.32 to 35/Asr/2019 16 A.Ys

M/S RAMAN KUMAR AGGARWAL,GURDASPUR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER .OF. INCOME. TAX , AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

bogus and added to total income of the assesses treating the same as unexplained cash credits u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.” 8. We heard the rival submission and considered the documents available in the record. The transaction was made through the share of M/s Kappac Pharma I.T.A. Nos.32 to 35/Asr/2019 16 A.Ys

SMT. DEEPTI AGGARWAL,GURDAS PUR vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

bogus and added to total income of the assesses treating the same as unexplained cash credits u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.” 8. We heard the rival submission and considered the documents available in the record. The transaction was made through the share of M/s Kappac Pharma I.T.A. Nos.32 to 35/Asr/2019 16 A.Ys

SH. YASH PAUL KHANNA PROP.,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

section quoted by the AO is 143(3) dated 03.02.2006, we find from records that in this case the original assessment was framed on 23.02.2024, u/s 143(3) on a total income of Rs.1,35,690/- (as against return income of Rs.1,06,150/- ), which has been subsequently set aside by the ld. CIT, Jalandhar-II, by invoking his jurisdiction