M/S CITI PLAZA,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , WARD 3(1), JALANDHAR

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

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

unexplainable source. In appeal, the ITAT held that CIT(A) could not give direction to reopen case for another year. On revenue's appeal, the Hon'ble Court dismissed the appeal, confirming the order of ITAT. Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Eskay Knit (India) Ltd vs. DCIE (2014) 110 DTR 126 (Bom), under identical facts, comprehensively held as under

M/S ACTIVE TOOLS (P). LIMITED,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -II, JALANDHAR

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

investment in building and excess stock found, the same cannot be assessed as business income, rather it is squarely covered under the provisions of section 69/69A as unexplained income/investment not eligible for any deduction and to be charged to tax as per section 115BBE of the Act.” 23. He relied upon the following decisions for those purposes: - a) FAMINA KNIT

SH. MANINDER SINGH CHEEMA,HOSHIARPUR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, HOSHIARPUR

In the result, the assessee appeal is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Laliet Kumar & Dr. M. L. Meenai.T.A. No. 702/Asr/2013 Assessment Year: 2009-10

disallowance of Rs. 14,15,788/- confirmed by learned CIT(A) is uncalled for since Rs. 83,00,000/- were surrendered towards development cost of Kartar Estate Pvt. Ltd. It was submitted that this amount has to, be added in the trading account and would result in increased cost of saleable area of the year under consideration. 11. Per contra

YASIR BILAL KHAN PROP. MS KHAN IMPEX FRUIT MANDI, PARIMPORA SRINAGAR,JAMMU AND KASHMIR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE JAMMU , SRINAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

disallowed the total purchase cost to the tune of Rs. 15,00,000/-as unexplained investment and added back the same

SHRIMATI NEETIMA GOYAL,FEROZPUR CANTT. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,3(2), FEROZPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed on legal ground

Bench: Shri L.P. Sahu, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.184/Asr/2018 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2011-2012) Neetima Goyal, Vs. Ito, Ward-3(2), Ferozepur Prop. Raghav Sales, G.T.Road, Ferozepur Cantt., Pin-152001 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Panno. : Aicpg 3586 H (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri I.P.Bansal, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Charan Dass, Dr

disallowance is bad in law. Addition of Rs. 17,40,000/- 10. This addition is on account of unexplained investment

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 invoking the provisions of section 40A (3) being cash payment made on account of purchase of property being stock in trade and Rs. 6,50,000/- towards three credits received during the year u/s 68 of Income Tax Act, besides Rs. 22,525/- on interest paid to these creditors. He argued that during

THE ASSISATANT COMMISSIOENR OF INCOME-TAX,, HOSHIARPUR vs. SH. MANINDER SINGH CHEEMA, HOSHIARPUR

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 719/Asr/2013 Assessment Year: 2007-08

unexplained investment made for the purchase of land. 3. That, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in law in deleting the addition of Rs.2,50,000/- made by the A.O. as income from undisclosed sources by disallowing

NASA AGRO INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,FAZILKA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-II, BATHINDA

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

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

unexplained income of assessee, impugned order passed by AO was to be quashed. 3. 190 ITD (Chd) 52 Future Tech IT System (P.) Ltd vs ITO Where Assessing Officer issued reopening notice against assessee merely on basis of information of Director (Investigation) that assessee had received share premium of huge amount during year which was not justifiable considering its lesser

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

disallowed some expenditure treating purchases as bogus and made addition - High Court in impugned order noted that purchases made by assessee- trader were duly supported by bills and payments were made by account payee cheque and seller also confirmed transaction and there was no evidence to show that amount was recycled back to assessee, and held that 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

disallowed some expenditure treating purchases as bogus and made addition - High Court in impugned order noted that purchases made by assessee- trader were duly supported by bills and payments were made by account payee cheque and seller also confirmed transaction and there was no evidence to show that amount was recycled back to assessee, and held that addition

SH. SUKHBIR SINGH BADAL,,MUKTSAR vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, BATHINDA

Appeal stand allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Udayan Das Gupta, Jm आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 411/Asr/2010 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2000-01) Shri Sukhbir Singh Badal Dcit-Circle-Ii बनाम/ Vs. S/O Parkash Singh Badal Bhatinda. Vpo Badal, District Muktsar "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Abspb-1568-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/Appellant By : Shri Ashwani Kumar, Ms. Deepali Aggarwal Ms. Muskan Garg (Cas) –Ld. Ars ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Charan Dass (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Sr. Dr

disallowance of Rs.2 Lacs. The assessee’s share therein @46.75% worked out to be Rs.2,87,083/- which was added to his income. Finally, the total income was assessed at Rs.32,49,450/-. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred further appeal. Appellate Proceedings 4.1 The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the legal ground assailing reassessment proceedings as urged by the assessee. On merits

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 expenditure incurred by the appellant being the payment made by the assessee company to above-mentioned Sh. Rajesh Dhawan for opening a bank account in the name of Vasudev Sales Corporation for facilitation of the appellant company. The Assessing Officer made no separate addition but covered it under the above- mentioned disallowance of Rs. 11,21,118/-. I have

M/S. PINKU BATRA ,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, JALANDHAR

In the result, the particular issue u/s 153C of the Act related in ITA

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

unexplained investment in property without considering the submission of the assessee and ignoring the overwhelming evidence placed on record to substantiate the source of investment. I.T.A. Nos. 436 & 437/Asr/2018 7 & Others Group of cases 5. That the appellant craves the leave to add, modify, amend or delete any of the grounds of appeal at the time of hearing

SHRI KASHMIRA SINGH,FEROZEPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR

In the result, the particular issue u/s 153C of the Act related in ITA

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

unexplained investment in property without considering the submission of the assessee and ignoring the overwhelming evidence placed on record to substantiate the source of investment. I.T.A. Nos. 436 & 437/Asr/2018 7 & Others Group of cases 5. That the appellant craves the leave to add, modify, amend or delete any of the grounds of appeal at the time of hearing

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

In the result, the particular issue u/s 153C of the Act related in ITA

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

unexplained investment in property without considering the submission of the assessee and ignoring the overwhelming evidence placed on record to substantiate the source of investment. I.T.A. Nos. 436 & 437/Asr/2018 7 & Others Group of cases 5. That the appellant craves the leave to add, modify, amend or delete any of the grounds of appeal at the time of hearing

M/S. PINKU BATRA ,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, JALANDHAR

In the result, the particular issue u/s 153C of the Act related in ITA

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

unexplained investment in property without considering the submission of the assessee and ignoring the overwhelming evidence placed on record to substantiate the source of investment. I.T.A. Nos. 436 & 437/Asr/2018 7 & Others Group of cases 5. That the appellant craves the leave to add, modify, amend or delete any of the grounds of appeal at the time of hearing

SHRI RAVI NARULA ,FEROZE PUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTER CIRCLE , AMRITSAR

In the result, the particular issue u/s 153C of the Act related in ITA

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

unexplained investment in property without considering the submission of the assessee and ignoring the overwhelming evidence placed on record to substantiate the source of investment. I.T.A. Nos. 436 & 437/Asr/2018 7 & Others Group of cases 5. That the appellant craves the leave to add, modify, amend or delete any of the grounds of appeal at the time of hearing

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

In the result, the particular issue u/s 153C of the Act related in ITA

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

unexplained investment in property without considering the submission of the assessee and ignoring the overwhelming evidence placed on record to substantiate the source of investment. I.T.A. Nos. 436 & 437/Asr/2018 7 & Others Group of cases 5. That the appellant craves the leave to add, modify, amend or delete any of the grounds of appeal at the time of hearing