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

demonetization period. 8. That the authorities below did not appreciate that there were total 4 members and out of which 2 were ladies members and the amount found was out of life time savings from time to time. Even the assessee family was showing handsome returned income from time to time. During the year under consideration the assessee himself

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

demonetized currency with the assessee has been deposited in the bank account under the colour of realization from the debtors. It is pertinent to note here that three directors of the assessee company, who are holding around 67% of shares and having control over the affairs of the assessee company are located in Delhi. It was thus most likely that

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

demonetized currency with the assessee has been deposited in the bank account under the colour of realization from the debtors. It is pertinent to note here that three directors of the assessee company, who are holding around 67% of shares and having control over the affairs of the assessee company are located in Delhi. It was thus most likely that

KUNAL ARORA,AMRITSAR vs. AO WARD 5 (3), AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

demonetization had taken place. Therefore, appellant's argument that all cash deposited are from sales and duly entered in cash book is not correct. As above, there is no infirmity in AO's action. In the result, appeal filed by appellant is dismissed.” 6. Before the Tribunal, the ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the cash that has been

M. K. ENTERPRISES,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(5), JALANDHAR

Bench: Udayan Das Gupta & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2017-18]

demonetization from 09.11.2016 as per guidelines of Reserve Bank of India. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer had issued various notices as per the details in para no.3 of the order and also issued a show-cause notice dated 18.12.2019 asking the assessee to show-cause why assessment should not be completed

SHRI SUKHJINDER SINGH,JALANDHAR vs. PRINICPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1, JALANDHAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

demonetization period”. As the case was selected for limited scrutiny, the assessee has furnished each and every document through e- Assessment proceedings. All the documents were duly checked and discussed at length during hearing with my counsel by the then Assessing Officer. The point wise reply of your notice is as follows: 1. That your goodself as stated the assessee

RAJ KUMAR & CO,NAWANSHAHR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NAWANSHAHR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

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

demonetization period). 10. In absence of any books of accounts being maintained and in absence of any tax audit report being uploaded u/s 44AB of the Act 61, and in absence of any supporting purchase invoices , bills and vouchers , and other documentary evidences , the assessment was completed on the basis of a so called “ draft return ” filed by the assessee

SHRI AJAY BALI ,SAMBA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD , SAMBA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee ITA No

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No.245/Asr/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18

demonetization which was lying with him. Thus, the AO was not at all justified in making the addition. As such the addition made may be deleted. Alternatively, the addition made is very high & excessive. I.T.A. No.245/Asr/2023 5 Assessment Year: 2017-18 10. That theassessee should have allowed the credit of lifetime savings from time to timeand also the credit