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

SH.SHREE GURU NANAK DEV QUIN-CENTENARY CELEBRATION COMMITTEE,LUDHIANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION), JALANDHAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri L.P. Sahu, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.238/Asr/2019 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं (िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year :2010-2011) िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Shree Guru Nanak Dev Vs. Ito(Exemptions) Ward, Quin-Centenary Celebrations Jalandhar Committee, Guru Nanak Bhawan, Ludhiana "थायी लेखा सं./Panno. : Aawfs 2431 F .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (" यथ" / Respondent) : Shri S.K.Mukhi, Advocate िनधा"!रती क" क" क" ओर क" ओर ओर सेसेसेसे /Assessee By ओर ओर सेसेसेसे /Revenue By : Shri M.P.Singh, Cit-Dr राज"व क" क" क" ओर क" ओर ओर सुनवाई क" तार'ख / Date Of Hearing : 06/02/2020 घोषणा क" तार'ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30/06/2020 आदेश आदेश / O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per L.P.Sahu, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Cit(A)-4, Ludhiana, Dated 08.02.2019, On The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- 1. That The Orders Of Ld. Cit(A) Is Illegal, Erroneous & Perverse & Thus Needs To Be Quashed. 2. That The Issuance Of Notice U/S 147/148 Is Bad In Law As No New Material Was There With The Ao To Initiate Action U/S 147 & The Proceedings In Furtherance Of Illegal Notice Are Void Ab-Initio & Deserve To Be Set Aside. 3. That The Addition Made By Ao & Partially Confirmed By Cit (A) Is Devoid Of Proper Appreciation Of Facts On Record & Against Express Provisions Of Law & Deserve To Be Set Aside. 4. That The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Amend Or Delete Any Of The Grounds Of Appeal On Or Before The Disposal Of The Present Appeal. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income On 15.06.2010 Declaring Total Income After Claiming Exemption

68,024. This has resulted into overstatement of capital fund to the tune of Rs.9805000/- (28168024-183630324) Capital Fund Details :- 31.03.2009 Rs. 18363024/- 31.03.2010 Rs. 28168024/- Unexplained Addition Rs. 9805000/- It was ascertained from the assessment record that assessee has not filed explanation alongwith documents/evidence about source of his increase in the capital fund. Resultantly, assessee has taken overstatement

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"

assessment was reopened u/s.147 and notice under section 148 of the Act was issued and served on 31.03.2015 on the ground that the assessee could not explain the cash deposits in his saving bank account with Axis Bank in reply to notice under section 133(6) issued to him. The said bank account was opened on 03.02.2011 in which cash

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

section 68. 2. That the order passed by the AO is bad in the eyes of law as no notice u/s 148 was ever served on the assessee and similarly no notice u/s 142(1) was served on the assessee. As such the assessment order passed is bad in the eyes of law and the same is liable

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

reopen assessment, though wide, are not plenary-Interest allowed as deduction in original assessment subsequently ITO found that creditors were name-lenders-Confession from creditors There was nothing to show that the confession related to a loan advanced to assessee-The live link or close nexus between material before ITO and belief he was to form regarding escapement of income

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

reopen assessment, though wide, are not plenary-Interest allowed as deduction in original assessment subsequently ITO found that creditors were name-lenders-Confession from creditors There was nothing to show that the confession related to a loan advanced to assessee-The live link or close nexus between material before ITO and belief he was to form regarding escapement of income

DCIT, CIRCLE-1, BATHINDA vs. DMR BUILDERS PVT LTD, BATHINDA

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed being devoid of merits

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Hybrid Hearing) I.T.A. Nos. 292 & 293/Asr/2024 Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18

section 145(3) of the Act 61 , with estimation of total income @ 8% on Gross receipts of Rs. 44.71 crores (excluding the receipts of Rs. 6.69 crores from DRAIPL group) and the disputed sub contract receipt of Rs. 6.69 crores has been separately added back u/s 68 of the Act 61. 7.2 The relevant paragraph of the order is reproduced

DCIT, CIRCLE-1, BATHINDA vs. DMR BUILDERS PVT LTD, BATHINDA

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed being devoid of merits

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Hybrid Hearing) I.T.A. Nos. 292 & 293/Asr/2024 Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18

section 145(3) of the Act 61 , with estimation of total income @ 8% on Gross receipts of Rs. 44.71 crores (excluding the receipts of Rs. 6.69 crores from DRAIPL group) and the disputed sub contract receipt of Rs. 6.69 crores has been separately added back u/s 68 of the Act 61. 7.2 The relevant paragraph of the order is reproduced

SHRIMATI JATINDER KAUR(ALIAS AMRITA),JALANDHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JALANDHAR

In the result all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

reopening has already been given during the ITA 728-731/Amr/2019 15 course of assessment proceedings and this aspect has been discussed in the submission filed by the AR. The AO has mentioned that under the New Scheme, if search u/s 132 is initiated then the AO has to issue notice u/s 153A without recording any satisfaction and without putting

SHRIMATI JATINDER KAUR (ALIAS AMRITA),JALANDHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JALANDHAR

In the result all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

reopening has already been given during the ITA 728-731/Amr/2019 15 course of assessment proceedings and this aspect has been discussed in the submission filed by the AR. The AO has mentioned that under the New Scheme, if search u/s 132 is initiated then the AO has to issue notice u/s 153A without recording any satisfaction and without putting

SHRIMATI JATINDER KAUR ( ALIAS AMRITA),JALANDHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JALANDHAR

In the result all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

reopening has already been given during the ITA 728-731/Amr/2019 15 course of assessment proceedings and this aspect has been discussed in the submission filed by the AR. The AO has mentioned that under the New Scheme, if search u/s 132 is initiated then the AO has to issue notice u/s 153A without recording any satisfaction and without putting

SHRIMATI NEETIMA GOYAL,FEROZPUR CANTT. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,3(2), FEROZPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed on legal ground

Bench: Shri L.P. Sahu, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.184/Asr/2018 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2011-2012) Neetima Goyal, Vs. Ito, Ward-3(2), Ferozepur Prop. Raghav Sales, G.T.Road, Ferozepur Cantt., Pin-152001 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Panno. : Aicpg 3586 H (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri I.P.Bansal, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Charan Dass, Dr

68 is not sustainable in a case where assessee is not maintaining books of account. 8 16. These synopsis are requested be read with written submissions and relevant documents filed in the paper-book. 17. In view of above submission, the impugned assessment odder may be held invalid and on merits the addition made by the AO are requested

SH. VARINDER KUMAR SOUL,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3(2), JALANDHAR

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 451(Asr)/2017 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Pan: Cvips 5218R

reopen the assessment u/s. 147. No contention in its 4 ITA No.451 (Asr)/2017(A.Y.2012-13) Varinder Kumar Soul v. ITO respect in fact stands raised before us. Rather, could not be inasmuch as the assessee, after failing to disclose any additional income per the return in pursuance to notice u/s. 148, offers additional rental income (at Rs.385,830 - which

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, SRINAGAR vs. SH. SUHAIL AHMED BHAT, PROP. M/S SHIFA TRADERS, RANGPARISTAN, SRINAGAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue Department stands dismissed

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N.K.Choudhryita No.136(Asr)/2015 Assessment Year:2007-08

section 147 does not allow reopening of a completed assessment merely on change on opinion. The Assessing Officer does not have the power to review the previous assessment order. The Assessing Officer has to have "reason to believe" that the income has escaped assessment. In the present case the 5 ITO vs. Sh. Suhail Ahmad Bhat, Srinagar Assessing Officer passed

SHRI ARUN NARULA,FEROZEPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OFD INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, AMRITSAR

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

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

68 of the I.T. Act 1961 were made in this case. The assessee for A.Y. 2011-12 being aggrieved, filed an appeal before Ld. CIT(A)-S, Ludhiana on 22.04.2016, The Ld. CIT(A)-5, Ludhiana vide his order dated 31.10.2018 in appeal no. 58/IT/CIT(A)-5/LDH/2016-17 has partly allowed the appeal of the assessee by holding

SHRI ARUN NARULA,FROZEPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, AMRITSAR

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

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

68 of the I.T. Act 1961 were made in this case. The assessee for A.Y. 2011-12 being aggrieved, filed an appeal before Ld. CIT(A)-S, Ludhiana on 22.04.2016, The Ld. CIT(A)-5, Ludhiana vide his order dated 31.10.2018 in appeal no. 58/IT/CIT(A)-5/LDH/2016-17 has partly allowed the appeal of the assessee by holding

SHRI ARUN NARULA ,FEROZEPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, AMRITSAR

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

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

68 of the I.T. Act 1961 were made in this case. The assessee for A.Y. 2011-12 being aggrieved, filed an appeal before Ld. CIT(A)-S, Ludhiana on 22.04.2016, The Ld. CIT(A)-5, Ludhiana vide his order dated 31.10.2018 in appeal no. 58/IT/CIT(A)-5/LDH/2016-17 has partly allowed the appeal of the assessee by holding

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, FARIDKOT, BSNL BUILDING vs. M/S VOHRA SOLVEX PVT. LTD, SADIQ ROAD

In the result, C.O. filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Krinwant Sahay

section 68 solely on basis of information received from Investigation Wing that lenders from whom assessee-company acquired loans were indulged in bogus accommodation entries, since assessee was not granted an opportunity to cross-examine persons whose statements were recorded during Investigation, Impugned addition made on basis of such investigation which was not privy to assessee were to be deleted