M/S SHANKAR RICE & GENERAL MILLS ,MOGA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE, MOGA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

Business Income of the Appellant duly credited to Profit and Loss account 3. Return of Income has been filed after including the above said income It is further submitted that Section 115BBE of the Act is not a charging provision but is a machinery provision to levy tax on income and it does not enlarge the ambit of section 68

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

Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Cash credit (Bank deposits) - Assessment year 2017-18 -Assessee-company was engaged in business

DASHMESH TIMBER AND FURNITURE HOUSE,AJNALA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, AMRITSAR

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

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Krinwant Sahay

68 and from section 69 to 69D at a flat rate of tax and do not allow any deduction in respect of expenditure or allowance under the provisions of the Act. Therefore, it is important for application of section 115BBE that the assessee should first fall in any of these sections. In our opinion, in the present case, the addition

POONAM MARWAHA,AMRITSAR vs. ACIT DCIT CEN CIR, AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee is allowed

68,\nhowever, Commissioner exercising his\nrevisionary power under section 263\nset aside assessment orders directing\nAssessing Officer to make fresh\nassessment after conducting detailed\nenquiry and upon satisfying on\ngenuneness of transaction - Whether\norder of Commissioner was not based\non irrelevant considerations and\nfurther in present circumstances, he\nwas not obliged to positively indicate\ndeficiencies in assessment order on\nmerits

SHRI DEEPAK SETIA, JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR

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

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No.112/Asr/2023 Assessment Year: 2019-20

business income. The ld. AR relied on the order of Sh. Harish Sharma vs. ITO in ITA No. 327/Chd/2020, date of order 11/05/2021 wherein it has been held that: “9. Further, section 68

MAX FINANCIAL SERVICE LIMITED ,NAWANSHAHR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1, JALANDHAR

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

Business Transfer Agreement. Not every transaction with a sister concern needs to be looked at with suspect and there had to be more reasons for conducting further enquiry. Further as rightly pointed out by the Ld.Counsel for the assessee the Ld. Pr.CIT has also not pointed out any provisions in law warranting the justification of the sale consideration

HOSHIARPUR TRADERS ,HOSHIARPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1, JALANDHAR

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

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

68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Cash credits (Firm partner, in case of) - Assessment year 1999-2000 assessee firm, engaged in business of cold storage, filed its return of income - Assessing Officer noted that assessee had credits of certain amount in name of several partners - He held credits as unproved and made an addition under section

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

business proceeds. Hence, I treat this money as income from other sources. The entry of the deposits in the bank accounts remained thus un-explained and is required to e brought to tax as per the provisions section 68

SHRI SATBIR SINGH BHULLAR,AMRITSAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- 5 (4), AMRITSAR

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

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

section 68 was inapplicable for assessment of such gift in assessee’s hands - Held, yes 8. Assessee’s Ground No. 4 The ld. Counsel placed the argument related to Ground No. 4 Ground That CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 737948/- on No 4 account of peak cash deposited in ICICI Bank Account

SHRI MOHD MANZOOR,RAJOURI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -2 (3), JAMMU

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

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

business of her son. Unused amount was deposited in the same bank account of the assessee. The source of deposit of cash was well explained before the revenue authorities by the assessee. Therefore, AO was indeed in error in adopting a wrong fact in his order. The grievance raised by the ld. Sr. Dr. in this appeal, is, therefore, devoid

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

section 71 of the Act, the losses can be set off against business income only , needful was not done, hence the income disclose during the survey for the cost incurred for development appellate is required to be treated as investment made outside the books of account and is required to be held as income from any other sources. Hence

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

business and filed their ITR for AY 2014-15 (survey year) disclosing this additional income. The assessment for that year was completed wherein this disclosure of additional income was accepted with minor addition of Rs. 64,000/- and Rs. 66,000/- respectively in the cases of father and son. The assessee having not preferred any appeal against this quantum assessment

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

business and filed their ITR for AY 2014-15 (survey year) disclosing this additional income. The assessment for that year was completed wherein this disclosure of additional income was accepted with minor addition of Rs. 64,000/- and Rs. 66,000/- respectively in the cases of father and son. The assessee having not preferred any appeal against this quantum assessment

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

business and filed their ITR for AY 2014-15 (survey year) disclosing this additional income. The assessment for that year was completed wherein this disclosure of additional income was accepted with minor addition of Rs. 64,000/- and Rs. 66,000/- respectively in the cases of father and son. The assessee having not preferred any appeal against this quantum assessment

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

business and filed their ITR for AY 2014-15 (survey year) disclosing this additional income. The assessment for that year was completed wherein this disclosure of additional income was accepted with minor addition of Rs. 64,000/- and Rs. 66,000/- respectively in the cases of father and son. The assessee having not preferred any appeal against this quantum assessment

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

business and filed their ITR for AY 2014-15 (survey year) disclosing this additional income. The assessment for that year was completed wherein this disclosure of additional income was accepted with minor addition of Rs. 64,000/- and Rs. 66,000/- respectively in the cases of father and son. The assessee having not preferred any appeal against this quantum assessment

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

business and filed their ITR for AY 2014-15 (survey year) disclosing this additional income. The assessment for that year was completed wherein this disclosure of additional income was accepted with minor addition of Rs. 64,000/- and Rs. 66,000/- respectively in the cases of father and son. The assessee having not preferred any appeal against this quantum assessment

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

business and filed their ITR for AY 2014-15 (survey year) disclosing this additional income. The assessment for that year was completed wherein this disclosure of additional income was accepted with minor addition of Rs. 64,000/- and Rs. 66,000/- respectively in the cases of father and son. The assessee having not preferred any appeal against this quantum assessment

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

business and filed their ITR for AY 2014-15 (survey year) disclosing this additional income. The assessment for that year was completed wherein this disclosure of additional income was accepted with minor addition of Rs. 64,000/- and Rs. 66,000/- respectively in the cases of father and son. The assessee having not preferred any appeal against this quantum assessment