SMT. BHARTI SINGH ,AMRITSAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3, AMRITSAR

Appeals of the appellant are disposed of in the terms indicated as above

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

221, 222 & 226/Asr/2023 Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2011-12 Smt. Bharti Singh Vs. ACIT, Circle (3), G. T. Road -14, Amritsar Rani Ka Bagh, Amritsar Punjab- 143 001 [PAN: BASPS2356E] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sh. Tarun Bansal, Adv. & Sh. Lakshay Bansal, CA Sh. Manoj Aggarwal, Sr. DR : Respondent by Date of Hearing : 14.09.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 21.09.2023 ORDER

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, SAMBA vs. SH. ASHOK KUMAR SHARMA, SAMBA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in Ground nos

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No.475/Asr/2016 Assessment Year: 2013-14

1 Jammu in ITA no 124/ASR/2011 in which the Hon'ble Bench while relying on the decision M/s Sun Pharmaceuticals in ITA No I.T.A. No.475/Asr/2016 22 Assessment Year: 2013-14 184/Asr/2011 dated 11.06.2010 for the assessment year 2005 -06 have held that deduction u/s 80IB of the Act, is allowable on the amount of enhanced income in view

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

221 (Punjab & Haryana). It has been concluded and adjudicated in thesecases that in the event where any assessee fails to establish the sales as a transaction, thereafter any amount found credited in the books of account of the assessee would be treated as unexplained cash credit. In the present case, the appellant has not come forward to substantiate the claim

SH. BARAT PAL SOOD,,PHAGWARA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,, PHAGWARA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

1 of the assessment order]. Copy of the affidavits is at page no. 14 to 16 of the paper book. During the assessment proceedings, the assessee was asked to explain as to how being a commission agent advance had been received from agriculturists whereas in general practice, the commission agent gives advance to the agriculturists [1st para at page