SHRI RAJ KUMAR ( M/S RADHIKA SALES CORP ), AMRITSAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- 3 (3), AMRITSAR

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

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

unexplained cash credit under section 68 - As per business model adopted by assessee, it was in continuous need for payment of cash at various points of time and hence, it had to withdraw cash in order to satisfy its business requirements - Assessee had furnished entire details of cash received from customers containing name and address of customers, PAN, and invoice

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

disallowance of Rs. 505000/- made by the AO u/s 40A(3), addition of Rs. 650000/- made u/s 68 on account of alleged unexplained cash credits

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

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 meagre amount of Rs.18.07 lakhs during demo period

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

unexplained cash credit. In the present case, the appellant has not come forward to substantiate the claim with the help of independent evidence that the sales transactions were genuine. Merely because the books of accounts were showing transactions of sale which on the ground were found to be bogus for the reasons mentioned by the Assessing Officer in the assessment

SHRI JAGTAR SINGH PRABHDAYAL,JALALABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-II, BATHINDA

In the result, the cross appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

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

cash and stock found during the course of survey proceedings u/s 133A of the Act at the business premises of the assessee on 20.02.2014 and subsequently in the course of scrutiny proceedings. Another addition of Rs.1,55,11,938/- was made u/s 68 of the Act on account of unexplained credit in the books of account of the Jagtar Singh

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE- II, BATHINDA vs. MEASAGE JAGTAR SINGH PRABHDAYAL , FAZILKA

In the result, the cross appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

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

cash and stock found during the course of survey proceedings u/s 133A of the Act at the business premises of the assessee on 20.02.2014 and subsequently in the course of scrutiny proceedings. Another addition of Rs.1,55,11,938/- was made u/s 68 of the Act on account of unexplained credit in the books of account of the Jagtar Singh

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 cash credit under section 68 - Whether Tribunal had rightly concluded that there was no merit in appeal against Commissioner (Appeals) order - Held, yes [Para 4] [In favour of assessee]” 15. Recently, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of PCIT v. Dipansu Mohapatra [2024] 160 taxmann.com 289 (SC) dismissed against order of High Court that where assessee provided

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 cash credit under section 68 - Whether Tribunal had rightly concluded that there was no merit in appeal against Commissioner (Appeals) order - Held, yes [Para 4] [In favour of assessee]” 15. Recently, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of PCIT v. Dipansu Mohapatra [2024] 160 taxmann.com 289 (SC) dismissed against order of High Court that where assessee provided

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

credited in the books of account. The assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition amount of Rs.3 lac related introduction of capital in partnership firm I.T.A. No. 479/Asr/2018 6 &I.T.A. No. 480/Asr/2018 by partner and Rs.18,04,903/- related to the bogus sundry creditors. Related to bogus purchased only the addition

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

credited in the books of account. The assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition amount of Rs.3 lac related introduction of capital in partnership firm I.T.A. No. 479/Asr/2018 6 &I.T.A. No. 480/Asr/2018 by partner and Rs.18,04,903/- related to the bogus sundry creditors. Related to bogus purchased only the addition

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

unexplained cash credits as deemed income of the assessee, since the assessee has failed to furnish any satisfactory explanation regarding nature and source of such credits. The tax shall be charged u/s 115BBE of the I. T.Act, 1961. Since the addition has been made u/s 68 of the I. T. Act, 1961 as deemed income penalty proceedings u/s 271AAC

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

unexplained cash credits as deemed income of the assessee, since the assessee has failed to furnish any satisfactory explanation regarding nature and source of such credits. The tax shall be charged u/s 115BBE of the I. T.Act, 1961. Since the addition has been made u/s 68 of the I. T. Act, 1961 as deemed income penalty proceedings u/s 271AAC

SHRI DARPAN JAIN,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX WARD - 1(1), JALANDHAR

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

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

unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act. By observing that the assessee failed to produce the creditor Smt. Anita Chadha for recording her statement and the copy of the debit note of interest sent by somebody other than Smt. Anita Chadha cannot be taken as confirmation of the advance loan and creditworthiness of Smt. Anita Chadha. The ld. Commissioners

SHRI NIRVAIR SINGH ,AMRITSAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- 4 (3), AMRITSAR

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

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

credit. 3. That the Id AO and worthy CIT-Appeal erred on law and facts by not independently verifying the fact u/s 133(6) that purchase consideration is paid through banking channel to sellers despite of our written request in our submission dated 04-09-2019 which is completely against the principles of natural justice. I.T.A. No.719/Asr/2019 3 Assessment Year

SHRIMATI. LATA NARANG,JALANDHAR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1, JALANDHAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

unexplained and hence in view of the replies and evidences filed the PCIT observed that same need verification at assessment stage and therefore the order passed by the AO 7 Lata Narang v. Pr. CIT is held to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. Here the PCIT failed to appreciate and consider the contents of the reply

PANKAJ JINDAL CONTRACTOR,MANSA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-I, BATHINDA, BATHINDA

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Physical Hearing) I.T.A. No. 695/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S Pankaj Jindal Contractor, Vs. Dcit-Circle-1, Near Vidya Bharti School, Bathinda. Mansa. [Pan:-Aajfp8008L] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Sudhir Sehgal, Adv. Respondent By Sh. Charan Dass, Sr. Dr

unexplained cash credit by the AO. During the course of appellate proceedings also, the appellant has not submitted any supporting documents for his contention. The contention of the appellant remained unjustified and unsubstantiated. Hence, the Assessment order is upheld and the ground is noted as dismissed.” I.T.A. No. 695/Asr/2024 7 Assessment Year: 2014-15 5. Now the assessee is before

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

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

disallowed in absence of any supporting documents filed. According to the Assessing Officer, the assessee failed to file any reply and therefore, the Assessing Officer added an amount of Rs.10,91,000/- as unexplained cash credit

GURU NANAK MILK PRODUCTS ,FEROZEPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR

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

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

cash credit limit. So, there is no I.T.A. No. 132/Asr/2022 4 Assessment Year: 2016-17 addition funds are raised. Accordingly, the ld. AO disallowed the 50% of the interest claim which is amount to Rs.41,44,372/-. Aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) upheld the order of the ld. AO. Being aggrieved