MESERS SHREE BHAGWATI COTTON TRADERS,BATHINDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD 1 (2), BATHINDA

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

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

bogus purchased only the addition was made @ 1% of total purchased and rest of the amount was deletedby the ld. CIT(A). 5. Being aggrieved assessee& revenueboth filed an appeal before us. Adjudication of ITA No. 480/Asr/2018 6. The ld. Counsel of the assessee, Mr. Sudhir Sehgal vehemently argued and placed that the assessee is a trader of cotton

INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD 1 (2), BATHINDA vs. MESERS SHREE BHAGWATI COTTON TRADERS ,, BATHINDA

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

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

bogus purchased only the addition was made @ 1% of total purchased and rest of the amount was deletedby the ld. CIT(A). 5. Being aggrieved assessee& revenueboth filed an appeal before us. Adjudication of ITA No. 480/Asr/2018 6. The ld. Counsel of the assessee, Mr. Sudhir Sehgal vehemently argued and placed that the assessee is a trader of cotton

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

Unexplained moneys (Share dealings) - High Court by impugned order held that where Assessing Officer disallowed exemption claimed by assessee under section 10(38) and made additions, alleging involvement in penny stock which were being misused for providing bogus accommodation of LTCG, however, there was lack of adverse comments from stock exchange and officials of company involved in these transactions

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

Unexplained moneys (Share dealings) - High Court by impugned order held that where Assessing Officer disallowed exemption claimed by assessee under section 10(38) and made additions, alleging involvement in penny stock which were being misused for providing bogus accommodation of LTCG, however, there was lack of adverse comments from stock exchange and officials of company involved in these transactions

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

unexplained credits in the books of accounts of the assessee, and its deemed income u/s 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

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

unexplained credits in the books of accounts of the assessee, and its deemed income u/s 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

SHRI RAMAN GUPTA,JAMMU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAMMU

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

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

unexplained money u/s 69 of the Act and added to the income of the assessee chargeable u/s 115BBE. Regarding addition on account of disallowance of expenses, the AO has mentioned that the assessee claimed an amount of Rs. 10,74,319/- under the head 'purchases' which were mostly incurred in cash and two of the expenses incurred

SH. VIKRAM JAIN,AMRITSAR. vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AMRITSAR.

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes on the terms afore-stated

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 336/Asr/2016 Assessment Year: 2010-11

money, i.e., assuming such disproportionate risk, more so by a concern whose products are well received in the market and in demand, isn’t consistent with the business reality and prudence and, even otherwise, unexplained, at any stage, with the AO, raising questions on the conduct (pgs. 4-5 of the assessment order). c) the assessee, despite being asked

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

money in the guise of capital gains. D) NATURE OF TRANSACTION: The nature of transaction itself looks suspicious from the manner it has been conducted i.e. the abnormal appreciation in the value of shares, the mode of payment for purchase of shares not doing the transaction through the normal share dealing procedures. The assessee has shown to have received sale

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

money in the guise of capital gains. D) NATURE OF TRANSACTION: The nature of transaction itself looks suspicious from the manner it has been conducted i.e. the abnormal appreciation in the value of shares, the mode of payment for purchase of shares not doing the transaction through the normal share dealing procedures. The assessee has shown to have received sale

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

money in the guise of capital gains. D) NATURE OF TRANSACTION: The nature of transaction itself looks suspicious from the manner it has been conducted i.e. the abnormal appreciation in the value of shares, the mode of payment for purchase of shares not doing the transaction through the normal share dealing procedures. The assessee has shown to have received sale

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

money in the guise of capital gains. D) NATURE OF TRANSACTION: The nature of transaction itself looks suspicious from the manner it has been conducted i.e. the abnormal appreciation in the value of shares, the mode of payment for purchase of shares not doing the transaction through the normal share dealing procedures. The assessee has shown to have received sale

SHRI FAROOQ AHMAD AHANGAR,SRINAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFICER, WARD-3(1, SRINAGAR

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

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

money is payable’ Thus, there is marked difference between a credit representing a liability payable by the assessee and a credit representing monies received from another person. It is because of this distinction, a liability for purchase which has been credited in the account of the supplier cannot be added under section 68 of the Act, more so when

SHRI FAROOQ AHMAD AHANGAR,SRINAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-3(1), SRINAGAR

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

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

money is payable’ Thus, there is marked difference between a credit representing a liability payable by the assessee and a credit representing monies received from another person. It is because of this distinction, a liability for purchase which has been credited in the account of the supplier cannot be added under section 68 of the Act, more so when

SMT. KIRAN MAHAJAN,JAMMU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2) JAMMU

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 319 & S.A. 15/(Asr)/2017 Assessment Year: 2012-13

bogus sundry creditors without rejecting the books of accounts and without invoking the provisions of section 145(3) of the IT Act, 1961. As such the addition made is bad and is illegal in the eyes of law and the same may be deleted.’ 4. Before us, the thrust of the assessee’s case was that no fresh notices were

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

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

money) - assessment year 2001-02 - Where assessee had furnished large amount of materials in form of documents to evidence genuineness of identity and transactions as well as creditworthiness of share applicants and other creditors and Assessing Officer did not conduct appropriate enquiry to conclude that share infusion and advances received were mom bogus entities, no addition could be made

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

bogus and add the credit balance u/s 68 of the Act in the I.T.A. No.164/Asr/2023 18 Assessment Year: 2014-15 hands of the appellant. As stated above, these two creditors had submitted their confirmation with the AO and that Sh. Rakesh Kumar Sidana, the proprietor of these alleged two firms is assessed to tax in Ward, the AO could have

SHRI RAGHU RAJ CHETHLEY,MOGA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2, MOGA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Appellant is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. N.S.Saini & Sh. N.K.Choudhryita No.645(Asr)/2018 Assessment Year:2011-12

unexplained cash credit. D. That even otherwise the CIT(A) was not justified to sustained the action of the AO of treating the agreement to sell as bogus agreement. E. That the orders of AO & CIT(A) are against the law and facts of the case. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the Appellant claimed