DIVAY MOHINDRU,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JALANDHAR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Hybrid Hearing) I.T.A. No. 129/Asr/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Divay Mohindru, Prop. M/S Vs. Ito, Ward 3(1), Mahavir Abhushans, Deep Jalandhar. Market Juakhana Bazar Kalan, Jalandhar. [Pan:-Advpm1552D] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Asharay Sarna, Ca. Sh. Charan Dass, Sr. Dr Respondent By Date Of Hearing 14.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 08.01.2026

145(3) of the Act and he has raised objections regarding the part rejection of books as stated by the AO in the assessment I.T.A. No. 129/Asr/2025 6 Assessment Year: 2017-18 order. The ld. AR submitted that as per provisions of law if books of account are found to be incorrect it is to be rejected in full, because

SHRIMATI. HARBHAJAN KAUR,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -1 (20, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

145 : (2009) 178 Taxman 315 Pg. 46 to 48 case laws. d) Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. MintuKalita High Court Of Gauhati (2001) 170 CTR (Gau) 149: (2002) 253 ITR 334 (Gau) : (2001) 117 Taxman 388 (Gau) Pg. 49 to 52 case laws. Harbhajan Kaur v. ITO e) Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. Ashok Kumar Bharti & Vijay Kumar Goel High

DCIT, CIRCLE-1, BATHINDA vs. DMR BUILDERS PVT LTD, BATHINDA

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed being devoid of merits

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Hybrid Hearing) I.T.A. Nos. 292 & 293/Asr/2024 Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18

section 145(3) of the Act 61 , with estimation of total income @ 8% on Gross receipts of Rs. 44.71 crores (excluding the receipts of Rs. 6.69 crores from DRAIPL group) and the disputed sub contract receipt of Rs. 6.69 crores has been separately added back u/s 68 of the Act 61. 7.2 The relevant paragraph of the order is reproduced

DCIT, CIRCLE-1, BATHINDA vs. DMR BUILDERS PVT LTD, BATHINDA

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed being devoid of merits

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Hybrid Hearing) I.T.A. Nos. 292 & 293/Asr/2024 Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18

section 145(3) of the Act 61 , with estimation of total income @ 8% on Gross receipts of Rs. 44.71 crores (excluding the receipts of Rs. 6.69 crores from DRAIPL group) and the disputed sub contract receipt of Rs. 6.69 crores has been separately added back u/s 68 of the Act 61. 7.2 The relevant paragraph of the order is reproduced

MESERS SUPERTECH FORGINGS(INDIA) PVT.LTD.,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE IV, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

reassessment proceedings for relevant year by recording reason that information so received needed to be examined and creditworthiness of assessee had to be proved beyond doubt to accept claim of its director that money seized infact belonged to assessee- company - Whether since 'reason to believe' recorded by Assessing Officer did not refer to any material that came to his knowledge

MEASAGE BHAI INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,MOGA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, MOGA

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

145(3) and, the AO raised no doubt, about the sales and closing stock nor any defect have been pointed out in day to day maintenance of books of accounts, in quantitative details and no enquiry have been made by the AO from the ‘Toll Barriers’ and, as such, the whole basis for making the addition on, merits was surmises

YADAV RICE MILLS,MUKTSAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, BATHINDA, BATHINDA

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

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

section 143(1), Assessing Officer could initiate reassessment proceedings subsequently on basis of information supplied by Investigation wing of department that assessee had taken bogus purchase entries from two parties. 6 I.T.A. No. 415/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-13 (ii) Backbone Projects Ltd. vs. ACIT [2021] 131 taxmann.com 80 (Gujarat) (iii) Priya Blue Industries [2021] 130 taxmann.com 492 (Gujarat

SHRIMATI JATINDER KAUR (ALIAS AMRITA),JALANDHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JALANDHAR

In the result all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

145. In the affidavit given by the father of the assessee, the gifts given by him from his sources in India were also inadvertently included. An affidavit mentioning the gifts given from sources in India totaling Rs. 86,41,000 is enclosed at page no. 147. It is prayed that this affidavit which was not filed earlier may please

SHRIMATI JATINDER KAUR ( ALIAS AMRITA),JALANDHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JALANDHAR

In the result all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

145. In the affidavit given by the father of the assessee, the gifts given by him from his sources in India were also inadvertently included. An affidavit mentioning the gifts given from sources in India totaling Rs. 86,41,000 is enclosed at page no. 147. It is prayed that this affidavit which was not filed earlier may please

SHRIMATI JATINDER KAUR(ALIAS AMRITA),JALANDHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JALANDHAR

In the result all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

145. In the affidavit given by the father of the assessee, the gifts given by him from his sources in India were also inadvertently included. An affidavit mentioning the gifts given from sources in India totaling Rs. 86,41,000 is enclosed at page no. 147. It is prayed that this affidavit which was not filed earlier may please

MAJOR SINGH,AMRITSAR. vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,, AMRITSAR.

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed on the afore-said terms

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A. No. 426/Asr/2015 Assessment Year: 2005-06

section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' hereinafter) dated 20.3.2013 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2005-06. 2. The appeal raises a legal issue, per an additional ground, as under, which shall therefore be taken a first in-as-much as the same, challenging the assessment as bad in law, goes to the root of the assessment

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, FARIDKOT, BSNL BUILDING vs. M/S VOHRA SOLVEX PVT. LTD, SADIQ ROAD

In the result, C.O. filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Krinwant Sahay

reassessment proceeding due to the absence of any purchase agreements and details of transportation in respect of the said purchases and as such the same has remained unexplained and addition has been made of the entire amount of purchase totaling Rs.6,43,54,912/-, u/s 69C of the Act to the total income of the assessee as bogus purchase

AMBEY CONSTRUCTION COMPANY,BATHINDA vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BATHINDA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. N. S. Saini & Sh. N. K. Choudhryita No. 121/Asr./2017 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ambey Construction Company, Vs Asstt. Commissioner Of #21605, Street No. 7, Power House Income Tax, Circle-1, Road, Bathinda Bathinda (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aanfa7199K

section 282 of the IT Act, 1961. The specific objection was raised during the course of assessment proceedings and the same has not even not rebutted by the AO during assessment proceedings and ITA No. 121/Asr./2017 2 Ambey Construction Company this fact has even been admitted by him in the remand report. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) erred

SHRI GURCHARAN SINGH ,GARSHANKAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, HOSHIARPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

145/- instead of Rs.69,71,191/- being mentioned as the income of the Petitioner was a clerical mistake and that the latter figure would be treated as his income.” 8. The observation of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, Commissioner of Income- tax, Delhi v. Kelvinator of India Ltd (2010) 320 ITR 561 (SC) reads as follows:- “Therefore, post

SH. MANJIT KRISHAN MALHOTRA,ABOHAR vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCME TAX , BATHINDA

The appeals of the assessee are disposed of in the terms indicated as above

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

145 & 146 of 2016-17 filed against penalty orders dated 29.10.2016 passed u/s 271D & 271E in lieu of the order dated 29.03.2016 passed u/s 263 by the Pr. CIT(A), Bathinda. 3. In support the ld. AR placed reliance on the decision of ITAT Hyderabad Bench in the case of “M/s Srimaan Industries Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad v. ITO Ward

SHRI. MANJIT KRISHAN MALHOTRA,ABOHAR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BATHINDA

The appeals of the assessee are disposed of in the terms indicated as above

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

145 & 146 of 2016-17 filed against penalty orders dated 29.10.2016 passed u/s 271D & 271E in lieu of the order dated 29.03.2016 passed u/s 263 by the Pr. CIT(A), Bathinda. 3. In support the ld. AR placed reliance on the decision of ITAT Hyderabad Bench in the case of “M/s Srimaan Industries Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad v. ITO Ward