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

68, 69, 69A, 69B, 69C or 69D and reflected in the return of income furnished under section 139. Hence, tax on this income was to be charged under section 115BBE even if it had been declared by the assessee in the return of income. Income has been erroneously taxed at lower tax rate in this case causing prejudice to revenue

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

68, 69, 69A, 69B, 69C or 69D and reflected in the return of income furnished under section 139. Hence, tax on this income was to be charged under section 115BBE even if it had been declared by the assessee in the return of income. Income has been erroneously taxed at lower tax rate in this case causing prejudice to revenue

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

68, 69, 69A, 69B, 69C or 69D and reflected in the return of income furnished under section 139. Hence, tax on this income was to be charged under section 115BBE even if it had been declared by the assessee in the return of income. Income has been erroneously taxed at lower tax rate in this case causing prejudice to revenue

HINDVEE SMALL FINANCE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 1(3) JAMMU, JAMMU

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

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Krinwant Sahay

68 of the Act were incorrectly invoked in the present case to make the impugned addition of Rs.50,90,194/-. In fact under these provisions, the additions are warranted on account of the un-explained cash credits only, whereas in the present case it is a case of acquisition of un-explained money within the meaning of section

HIMALYA SPINNING MILLS,AMRITSAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- 2 (1), AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

demonetized notes could not have been accepted as valid tender. Since the sale proceeds for which cash was received from the customers was already admitted as income and if the cash deposits are added under section 68

SH. BARAT PAL SOOD,,PHAGWARA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,, PHAGWARA

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

section 69 that the ITO is not obliged to treat the unexplained investment as income in each and every case. Where the assessee was a young land and could not have earned the income in question, the deletion of addition by the IT A T was justified. In this case, the funds were deposited in the bank account during

H. N. AGRI SERVICE PRIVATE LIMITED,SRINAGAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAMMU

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

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

section 68 of the Income- tax Act, 1961 to the same. We delete the sustained addition of Rs. 15,42,000.” 4. Lalchand Bhagat AmbicaRamVs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 288 (SC) The relevant paragraph of the Hon’able Apex Court respectfully is reproduced as follows: - “A decision of the Allahabad High Court reported in Kanpur Steel Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAMMU vs. M/S HN AGRI SERVE PRIVATE LIMITED, SRINAGAR

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

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

section 68 of the Income- tax Act, 1961 to the same. We delete the sustained addition of Rs. 15,42,000.” 4. Lalchand Bhagat AmbicaRamVs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 288 (SC) The relevant paragraph of the Hon’able Apex Court respectfully is reproduced as follows: - “A decision of the Allahabad High Court reported in Kanpur Steel Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner

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

section 69A can be invoked if, in any financial I.T.A. No.166/Asr/2022 17 Assessment Year: 2017-18 year, the assessee is found to be the owner of any money, etc... which has not been recorded in the books of accounts – ITAT rules in assessee ‘favour, holding that mere cash deposit in bank account after the date of demonetization, i.e., 08.11.2016 does

RAJ KUMAR & CO,NAWANSHAHR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NAWANSHAHR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

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

demonetization period). 10. In absence of any books of accounts being maintained and in absence of any tax audit report being uploaded u/s 44AB of the Act 61, and in absence of any supporting purchase invoices , bills and vouchers , and other documentary evidences , the assessment was completed on the basis of a so called “ draft return ” filed by the assessee

RANJAN AGGARWAL,AMRITSAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-II, AMRITSAR

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

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

demonetization i.e 09.11.2016,the figure of sale given to the Excise & Taxation Department and mentioned in their order was INR 5,99,85,311/- which included the alleged cash sale which was main part of cash in hand as on 09.11.2016. 3. That Ld. A.O. unlawfully made and worthy CIT(A) has unlawfully confirmed addition

SMT. SANDEEP KAUR W/O SH SUKHPAL SINGH,MALOUT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2 (5), MUKTSAR

In the result, the appeal bearing ITA No

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

demonetization period in her limit accounts, the assessee had transferred the same to her saving bank account on the very next day and subsequently, transferred the same to some Smt. Malkeet Kaur on the same day. However, it cannot be denied that withdrawal of Rs.2,15,000/- by the assessee against Gold Loan has I.T.A. No.157/Asr/2022 7 Assessment Year

BALWINDER SINGH,MOGA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, MOGA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

68 or 694, excess stock is covered u/s 69 or 698, construction of Shed/Godown is covered u/s 698 or 69C and advances made to Sundry Parties is covered uls 69, 698 or 690 is like an open ended hypothesis which is not supported by any specific finding that the matter shall fall under which of the specific sections

DHARAM PAL ,PATHANKOT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, PATHANKOT

The appeal stands partly allowed accordingly

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Shri Udayan Das Gupta, Jm

demonetization period and accordingly, it was required to prove the sources thereof. The assessee is stated to be engaged in jewellery business. In response to hearing notices, the assessee furnished cash book but failed to file sales bill. The assessee had cash-in-hand for Rs.22,77,725/-. After granting benefit of available cash balance for Rs.22.77 Lacs

SHRI RAJESH KUMAR ,KAPURTHALA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

section 115BBE of the Act, without considering the facts of the case. 5. That the appellant craves the leave to add, modify, amend or delete any of the grounds of appeal at the time of hearing and all the above grounds of appeal are without prejudice to each other.” 3. Non attended for the assessee. However, the appellant has filed

MS/. S B M GOLD,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- 1 ( 4), JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessees is allowed

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

68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Addition confirmed is illegal and bad in law. 3. That on the facts & circumstances of the case, Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [‘CIT(A)’], has grossly erred in rejecting legal ground of appeal No. 3, wherein assessee has challenged that addition of Rs. 1,75,588/- made without invoking provisions of section

SHRI SAMREEN SHAFI,SRINAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, SRINAGAR

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

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

section 44AD, when the said transactions were duly recorded in books of accounts and income earned from these transactions stands declared voluntary in the ITR filed under PAN-AHCPS0377H 5. The assessment is based on mere presumptions and conjectures. I.T.A. No.67/Asr/2023 3 Assessment Year: 2017-18 6. Assessee craves right to add, alter or modify any grounds) [of appeal before

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

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 21.10.2019. Further, the AR also relied upon annexure enclosed along