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

68 were justified- 4. Suman Poddar Vs ITO Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 26864 OF 2019, [2019] 112 taxmann.com 330 (SC)- Where High Court upheld Tribunal's order holding that assessee's claim for exemption under section 10(38) could not be allowed because share transactions 19 I.T.A. Nos. 346 & 347/Asr/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 were bogus

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

disallowing said expenditure by treating same as unexplained expenditure or bogus liability under section 68 of the Act. 19. In the above

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

disallowing said expenditure by treating same as unexplained expenditure or bogus liability under section 68 of the Act. 19. In the above

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3, SRINAGAR vs. M/S TRUMBO CEMENT INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED , SRINAGAR

In the result, the Ground no-1 of the Revenue for ITA No

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

section 68 of the Act in view of the fact that the identity of the persons is not in doubt as they are all directors of the appellant company. As the credentials of the directors has already been verified during assessment proceedings, the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) are not acceptable.” I.T.A. No.123/Asr/2020 4 I.T.A. No.124/Asr/2020 I.T.A. No.124/Asr/2020

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3, SRINAGAR vs. M/S TRUMBO CEMENT INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED, SRINAGAR

In the result, the Ground no-1 of the Revenue for ITA No

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

section 68 of the Act in view of the fact that the identity of the persons is not in doubt as they are all directors of the appellant company. As the credentials of the directors has already been verified during assessment proceedings, the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) are not acceptable.” I.T.A. No.123/Asr/2020 4 I.T.A. No.124/Asr/2020 I.T.A. No.124/Asr/2020

NEERAJ KUMAR SETHI,DELHI vs. ITO, NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE (NFAC)

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

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

section 68 are not applicable to the facts of the case. 6. That the order is bad in law and on facts. 7. That the appellant craves leave to add or amend the ground of appeal before the appeal is heard and disposed off.” 3 I.T.A. No. 9/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-15 3. Thereafter, the assessee has preferred an additional

POONAM MARWAHA,AMRITSAR vs. ACIT DCIT CEN CIR, AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee is allowed

disallowance - Cash payment exceeding prescribed limit\n(Rule 6DD) - Assessment year 2013-14 - Assessee-company was engaged in business of\nmanufacturing of dairy products Assessee filed return and Assessing Officer passed\nassessment order after making certain additions - Principal Commissioner observed that\nassessee made cash payment in excess of Rs. 20,000 to milk sellers who were traders and\nsaid sellers

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

Section 68 is not empowered to allow addition of sundry debtors/ I.T.A. No.150/Asr/2021 37 & I.T.A. No. 94/Asr/2021 advance to growers. The ld. CIT(A) without any cross verification had disallowed

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

Section 68 is not empowered to allow addition of sundry debtors/ I.T.A. No.150/Asr/2021 37 & I.T.A. No. 94/Asr/2021 advance to growers. The ld. CIT(A) without any cross verification had disallowed

SHRI SURINDER KUMAR ,MANSA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, BATHINDA

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

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

68. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A), Bathinda erred on facts and law in confirming the disallowance of Rs. 505000/- made by the AO by invoking the provisions of section

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

68 on account of unexplained credit in the books of account without appreciating that the primary onus of proving capacity of the creditor as well as genuineness of the transaction was not discharged by the assessee.” I.T.A. No. 479/Asr/2018 5 &I.T.A. No. 480/Asr/2018 4. Brief fact of the case is that both appeal of the assessee and the revenue

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

68 on account of unexplained credit in the books of account without appreciating that the primary onus of proving capacity of the creditor as well as genuineness of the transaction was not discharged by the assessee.” I.T.A. No. 479/Asr/2018 5 &I.T.A. No. 480/Asr/2018 4. Brief fact of the case is that both appeal of the assessee and the revenue

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3, AMRITSAR vs. SHRIMATI RAJ RANI ARORA, AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeal of the department is dismissed

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

section 68 of the act are satisfied with regard to loan*'of Rs 1,00,00,000/- received by the appellant from Sh. Amandeep Singh in the year under consideration and no addition of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- is called for u/s 68 of the act in respect of loan from Sh. Amandeep Singh and the same is hereby

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

Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Cash credits - Assessment year 2000-01 - Assessee had taken loans from various persons - Assessing Officer made addition treating said loans as undisclosed income of assessee on ground that creditworthiness of creditors could not be established by assessee - On appeal, Tribunal found that assessee had placed on record affidavits of creditors and their

KAMAL RAHIL,JALANDHAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

section 68 of the Act. 6. Accordingly, we hold that no disallowance should be made an amount of Rs.2,85,000/- for the assessment

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

68 of the Act 61 , on account of unexplained cash credit after rejection of books of accounts invoking provisions of section 145(3). 19. Before concluding the Ld. AR referred to the bank statement of HDFC bank and submitted that in the instant case the total cash deposited in bank during the FY is only Rs. 71.12 lakhs , ( including

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JAMMU vs. M/S FIL INDUSTRIES,, SRINAGAR

In the result appeal of the assessee ground no 4 to 4

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

section 80 IB of a sum of Rs. 2,11,80,352/-, includes the aforesaid figures of Rs. 10,14,174/- and Rs. 91,014/-. I.T.A. Nos.288 to 294/Asr/2015 56 22.2. We heard the rival submission & observed the documents. There is factual difference in both the orders of the revenue. The ld. CIT-DR only relied on the orders

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMMU vs. M/S. FIL INDUSTRIES LTD, SRINAGAR

In the result appeal of the assessee ground no 4 to 4

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

section 80 IB of a sum of Rs. 2,11,80,352/-, includes the aforesaid figures of Rs. 10,14,174/- and Rs. 91,014/-. I.T.A. Nos.288 to 294/Asr/2015 56 22.2. We heard the rival submission & observed the documents. There is factual difference in both the orders of the revenue. The ld. CIT-DR only relied on the orders