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

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

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. 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

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

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

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,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. 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

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

SHRI MOHAMMAD ABBAS ASHRAF,SRINAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -1, SRINAGAR

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

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

reassessment order, stating that it was not tenable in law to frame an assessment based solely on the information of cash deposit. Without prejudice to the above, the assessee further submits as. Ground No 3:- 1 he appellate during the financial year 2011-12 has maintained two Bank accounts comprising of cash credits and Saving Bank accounts for carrying

SMT. BANI TREHAN,JAMMU vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAMMU

In the result, the appeals of the assessee bearing ITA Nos

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

unexplained cash deposits, when the same represent business payments of M/s Kash Ind Roller Mills Jammu, where assessee was full time partner. 10. That the re- assessment is based on mere presumption and conjectures and the re- assessment is illegal. 11. That the appellate craves leave to add/ amend any ground of appeal at the time of hearing

SH. NIRBHAY TREHAN,JAMMU vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAMMU

In the result, the appeals of the assessee bearing ITA Nos

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

unexplained cash deposits, when the same represent business payments of M/s Kash Ind Roller Mills Jammu, where assessee was full time partner. 10. That the re- assessment is based on mere presumption and conjectures and the re- assessment is illegal. 11. That the appellate craves leave to add/ amend any ground of appeal at the time of hearing

SH. NIRBHAY TREHAN,JAMMU vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAMMU

In the result, the appeals of the assessee bearing ITA Nos

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

unexplained cash deposits, when the same represent business payments of M/s Kash Ind Roller Mills Jammu, where assessee was full time partner. 10. That the re- assessment is based on mere presumption and conjectures and the re- assessment is illegal. 11. That the appellate craves leave to add/ amend any ground of appeal at the time of hearing

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

unexplained credit in bank account to the tune of Rs.68.63 crores were taken up for reassessment u/s 148 and after verification and examination of all documentary evidences such as sales register, cash

GURDEEP SINGH,JAMMU AND KASHMIR vs. DCIT/ACIT CIRCLE 1, JAMMU, JAMMU AND KASHMIR

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

reassessment made by the\nAO u/s 148 ignoring the fact that the assessment in the case of the assessee stood\nalready completed u/s 143(3) and there was no new material which could warrant\naction u/s 147.\n(5) That the addition of Rs.450000/-made on account of unexplained cash credits