SH. PUNEET SEHDEV PROP,JAMMU vs. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, JAMMU

Bench: Shri L. P. Sahu & Shri Ravish Sood

unexplained credit within the meaning of Sec. 68 of the Act. On appeal, the CIT(A) concurred with the view taken by the A.O and upheld the addition made by the A.O u/s 68 of the Act. Shri Puneet Sehdev Vs. ITO, Ward 2(2), Jammu – A.Y 2008-09 & A.Y 2009-10- ITA No. 305/Asr/2015 & ITA No. 05/Asr/2013 Shri Puneet

SH. PUNEET SEHDEV PROP;,JAMMU vs. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER,, JAMMU

Bench: Shri L. P. Sahu & Shri Ravish Sood

unexplained credit within the meaning of Sec. 68 of the Act. On appeal, the CIT(A) concurred with the view taken by the A.O and upheld the addition made by the A.O u/s 68 of the Act. Shri Puneet Sehdev Vs. ITO, Ward 2(2), Jammu – A.Y 2008-09 & A.Y 2009-10- ITA No. 305/Asr/2015 & ITA No. 05/Asr/2013 Shri Puneet

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAMMU vs. SH. PUNEET SEHDEV, PROP., JAMMU

Bench: Shri L. P. Sahu & Shri Ravish Sood

unexplained credit within the meaning of Sec. 68 of the Act. On appeal, the CIT(A) concurred with the view taken by the A.O and upheld the addition made by the A.O u/s 68 of the Act. Shri Puneet Sehdev Vs. ITO, Ward 2(2), Jammu – A.Y 2008-09 & A.Y 2009-10- ITA No. 305/Asr/2015 & ITA No. 05/Asr/2013 Shri Puneet

SH. FARUKH JEHAN ZEB ,SRINAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, ANANT NAG

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

unexplained credits found in the books of accounts. The Ld. CIT (A) ignored the jurisdictional ITAT Bench Judgment in the case of Sh. Sanjeev Kumar v/s ITO ITA No. 445-449/Asr/2015. 3. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, that the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in upholding the assumption of jurisdictions for reassessment

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 credit entries in bank. 8. The matter carried in appeal has been dismissed by the ld. first appellate authority by observing as follows: 6 I.T.A. Nos. 346 & 347/Asr/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 ( relevant portion reproduced ) “5.3.3 I have considered the reasoning given by the AO in assessment order, submissions & documents submitted by the appellant, facts

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 credit entries in bank. 8. The matter carried in appeal has been dismissed by the ld. first appellate authority by observing as follows: 6 I.T.A. Nos. 346 & 347/Asr/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 ( relevant portion reproduced ) “5.3.3 I have considered the reasoning given by the AO in assessment order, submissions & documents submitted by the appellant, facts

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

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 was emanated from a common

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

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 was emanated from a common

SHRI GURBINDER SINGH MAHAL,AMRITSAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-IV ( 2), AMRITSAR

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

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

credited in the bank account on I.T.A. No.22/Asr/2023 3 Assessment Year: 2014-15 account of sale of property made on behalf of the father through registered POA dated 17.02.2012. 4. That the CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 19547959/- on account of cash deposited ignoring the fact that the assessee's father was the owner

LATE. SH. GURMAIL. SINGH S/O. SH. LAL SINGH,SHRI MUKAT SAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF 9INCOME TAX. CIRCLE -II, BATHINDA

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

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

unexplained entries in the impounded diary. 11. That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) gravelly erred in upholding the action of the Id. Assessing Officer who made addition of Rs. 3,40,64,500/- under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on account of entries in the alleged impounded

SH. ARASHPREET SINGH S/O. LATE SH. GURMAIL SINGH,MUKTSAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-II, BATHINDA

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

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

unexplained entries in the impounded diary. 11. That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) gravelly erred in upholding the action of the Id. Assessing Officer who made addition of Rs. 3,40,64,500/- under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on account of entries in the alleged impounded

LATE. SH. GURMAIL. SINGH. S/O. SH. LAL SINGH,SRI MUKATSAR vs. DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -II, BATHINDA

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

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

unexplained entries in the impounded diary. 11. That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) gravelly erred in upholding the action of the Id. Assessing Officer who made addition of Rs. 3,40,64,500/- under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on account of entries in the alleged impounded

LATE. SH. GURMAIL SINGH.S/O. LATE SH. LAL SINGH,SRI MUKTSAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -II, BATHINDA

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

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

unexplained entries in the impounded diary. 11. That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) gravelly erred in upholding the action of the Id. Assessing Officer who made addition of Rs. 3,40,64,500/- under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on account of entries in the alleged impounded

LATE. SH. GUMAIL SINGH . S/O. SH. LAL SINGH,MUKTSAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -II, BATHINDA

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

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

unexplained entries in the impounded diary. 11. That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) gravelly erred in upholding the action of the Id. Assessing Officer who made addition of Rs. 3,40,64,500/- under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on account of entries in the alleged impounded

SH. ARSPREET SINGH . S/O. LATE. SH. GURMAIL SINGH ,MUKTSAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE .II, BATHINDA

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

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

unexplained entries in the impounded diary. 11. That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) gravelly erred in upholding the action of the Id. Assessing Officer who made addition of Rs. 3,40,64,500/- under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on account of entries in the alleged impounded

LATE. SH. GURMAIL SINGH S/O. SH. LAL SINGH,SRI MUKATSAR vs. DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -II, BATHINDA

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

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

unexplained entries in the impounded diary. 11. That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) gravelly erred in upholding the action of the Id. Assessing Officer who made addition of Rs. 3,40,64,500/- under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on account of entries in the alleged impounded

SH. ARASHPREET SINGH S/O LATE SH. GURMAIL SINGH,SHRI MUKATSAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-II, BATHINDA

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

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

unexplained entries in the impounded diary. 11. That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) gravelly erred in upholding the action of the Id. Assessing Officer who made addition of Rs. 3,40,64,500/- under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on account of entries in the alleged impounded

SH. ARASHPREET SINGH S/O. LATE SH. GURMAIL SINGH,MUKTSAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CERCLE- II, BATHINDA

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

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

unexplained entries in the impounded diary. 11. That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) gravelly erred in upholding the action of the Id. Assessing Officer who made addition of Rs. 3,40,64,500/- under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on account of entries in the alleged impounded