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

cash credit within meaning of section 68 and added same in her income - Whether where assessee was not maintaining any account books, bank statement could not be construed to be I.T.A. No.258/Asr/2022 12 Assessment Year: 2008-09 a book maintained by assessee and, thus, impugned addition was unsustainable on account of inapplicability of section 68 - Held, yes. 4. Deposits

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

cash deposit in bank account of assessee was unjustified ” 7.4) J'Jaspal Singh Sehgal v. ITO WD 21(2)(1), Mumbai, [2017] 83 taxmann.com 246 (Mumbai - Trib.) “Section 68

DR. HARPRIT SINGH ,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Choudhry & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.संसंसंसं././././I.T.A No.195/Asr/2018 िनधा"रणवष"/A.Y.:2011-12 िनधा"रणवष" िनधा"रणवष" िनधा"रणवष" Dr. Harprit Singh, C/O M/S. Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Orthonova Hospital, Near Nari Income-Tax, Niketan, Nakoddar Road, Central Circle –Ii, Jalandhar Jalandhar(Pb) (Pb) Pan: Acmps 7237 F अपीलाथ"Appellant अपीलाथ" ""यथ"/Respondent ""यथ" अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" ""यथ" ""यथ"

68 by making addition on account of undisclosed cash deposit made into bank account of the assessee. Since the passbook maintained by the bank is not a books of accounts of the assessee. Therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) observed that the cash deposit in the bank account is upheld under section

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

deposit as unexplained investment of assessee [In favour of assessee] e) 2017] 83 taxmann.com 246 (Mumbai - Trib.) IN THE ITAT MUMBAI BENCH ' J'Jaspal Singh Sehgal v. Income-tax Officer WD 21(2)(1), Mumbai* Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Cash

SHRIMATI RAVINDER BAWA,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(3), JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Laliet Kumar & Dr. M. L. Meena

68) e) Copy of A/c No. 0242000125537289. (Paper Book Page No. 69) f) Copy of cash book of branch from 30.06.2010 to 10.07.2010. (Paper Book Page No. 71 to 117) g) Details of FDR’s in the name of Ravinder Bawa from 30.06.2010 to 10.07.2010. (Paper Book Page No. 118) h) Certificate of bank to the effect that no cash

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3), ABOHAR, INCOME TAX OFFICE, ABOHAR vs. RAJ KUMAR, ABOHAR

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

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

Section 69A r.w.s. 115BBE for unexplained bank deposits. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating the facts mentioned in the assessment order dated 08.04.2021 that the addition of Rs. 85,60,85,879/- (on a/c of cash and non-cash deposits) included the amount of unexplained cash deposits also. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating

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

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

cash in hand which clearly related to the business of assessee and moreover, the assessee had declared such surrender over and above, the normal profits of the concern, therefore, the case laws relied upon by the learned DR is also in favour of the assessee. 12. In view of the above facts and circumstances, and in view of judicial pronouncements

NARINDER AND COMPANY,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(5), JALANDHAR

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

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

cash deposits in the bank account just before the demonetization period with due application of mind by the AO. 7. Next issue is regarding verification of unsecured loans by the AO. The AR submitted that the unsecured loans, has duly been enquired by the AO and he drew the attention of the bench towards notice u/s 142(1) dated

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

deposits of Rs.99,69,395/- as unexplained cash credits under section 68 of the Income Tax Act. It was also

SHRI RAVINDER SACHDEVA,AMRITSAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -5 (4), AMRITSAR

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

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

cash deposits of Rs. 16,70,500/- the same is treated as income earned from undisclosed source deposited in bank account and is assessed to tax as his unexplained investment in bank account as per provisions of section 68

SH. SATISH KUMAR,JALANDHAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,, JALANDHAR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Ravish Soodita No.105/Asr./2017 (Assessment Years: 2008-09)

68 (Mumbai Trib.) wherein it was held as under: - 'I have carefully considered the rival submissions. In the present case the addition has been I made by the income tax authorities by treating the cash deposits in the bank account as an unexplained cash credit within the meaning of section

M/S BLUE CITY TOWNSHIP & COLONIZERS,AMRITSAR. vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,, AMRITSAR.

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

section 68. 20. Per contra, the Ld. DR supported the impugned order. He contended that the AO observed that the amounts which the assessee paid over and above the prices mentioned in the registries of purchase of land by the assessee company during FY 2008-09 were amounting to a sum of Rs 216,23,000/-, being the cash deposited

SHRIMATI MEERA AGGARWAL,JALANDHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE- 2, JALANDHAR

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

Section 68 of the 'Act', in respect of the cash deposit in the bank account of the assessee. We find

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

Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Cash credits - Assessment year 1987-88 - During course of assessment, Assessing Officer found that 'K’ i.e., partner in assessee-firm, deposited

DR.HARPRIT SINGH,JALANDHAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , JALANDHAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is illegal and bad in law. b) That on the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. Assessing Officer has grossly erred in law in making addition of Rs. 18,959/- as undisclosed interest income. Addition made is illegal and bad in law. c) While estimating income, no credit for withdrawals made

SHRI MANMOHAN SINGH KAPUR,HOSHIARPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, JALANDHAR

In the result, appeal of the assessees in ITA Nos

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

cash deposited in excess of Rs. 2,50,000/-). The explanation offered by the assessee was not substantiated in any manner by the assessee as is required under the provisions of section 68

SMT HARNEET KAUR JUNEJA,JALANDHAR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1, JALANDHAR

In the result, appeal of the assessees in ITA Nos

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

cash deposited in excess of Rs. 2,50,000/-). The explanation offered by the assessee was not substantiated in any manner by the assessee as is required under the provisions of section 68

SHRI SUKHJIT SINGH,HOSHIARPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, JALANDHAR

In the result, appeal of the assessees in ITA Nos

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

cash deposited in excess of Rs. 2,50,000/-). The explanation offered by the assessee was not substantiated in any manner by the assessee as is required under the provisions of section 68