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

10,38,81,637 Cash Deposit 4,31,25,914 5,98,60,500 Percentage of cash sales 81.16% 57.62% h) It is further submitted that the A.O. has invoked the provisions of Section 68 of the Income Tax Act 1961, in the absence of any corroborative evidence even when the assessee had explained the nature and source

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

10-12 of judgement paper book] and the relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced below: I.T.A. No.117/Asr/2022 22 Assessment Year: 2017-18 “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 certain amount in her capital account - Assessing

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

68 were justified- 4. Suman Poddar Vs ITO Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 26864 OF 2019, [2019] 112 taxmann.com 330 (SC)- Where High Court upheld Tribunal's order holding that assessee's claim for exemption under section 10(38) could not be allowed because share transactions 19 I.T.A. Nos. 346 & 347/Asr/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 were

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

68 were justified- 4. Suman Poddar Vs ITO Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 26864 OF 2019, [2019] 112 taxmann.com 330 (SC)- Where High Court upheld Tribunal's order holding that assessee's claim for exemption under section 10(38) could not be allowed because share transactions 19 I.T.A. Nos. 346 & 347/Asr/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 were

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

10. In another case of “Raymond Woolen Mills Limited. Vs ITO”, 236 ITR 34 the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed as under: “In this case, we do not have to give a final decision as to whether there is suppression of material facts by the assessee or not. We have only to see whether there was prima facie some

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

10 Assessment Year: 2008-09 The ld. Counsel further argued that as per section 68 of the Act, any sum found credited in the books of an assessee was maintainedin any previous year. As such the primary requirement for invoking the provisions of section 68 is maintenance of books of accounts. However, in the present case, the assessee

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, JAMMU vs. M/S MOHD ASRAF SHEIKH, JAMMU

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed

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

10 of the order passed by the Tribunal. It was found that there has been search in the case of the assessee and its group concern on 7- 1-1999 which was concluded on 23-3-1999 and during the course of the search, duplicate cash book, ledger and other books showing the unaccounted manufacturing and trading arrived

MESERS SHRI SWAMI SHANKARNATH PARVAT CHARITABLE AND WELFARE TRUST ,KAPURTHALA vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the assessee appeal is allowed

Bench: Sh. Laliet Kumar & Dr. M. L. Meenai.T.A. No. 602/Asr/2018 Assessment Year: N.A.

68,816/- in F.Y: 2017/18. These are meager expenses. No adverse opinion has been drawn by him on this observation. It is submitted that Income & Expenditure Account for F.Y: 2016-17 appears at Page 20 of the Paper Book and for F.Y: 2017-18 at Page 23 of the Paper Book. The details of various expenses incurred by the Society

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

10. We have heard the rival contentions, perused the material on record, impugned order, written submission and case law cited before us. Admittedly, the AO passed the order ex parte qua the assessee u/s 144 of I.T.A. No. 263/Asr/2022 Assessment Year: 2012-13 8 the Act and same has been confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) without appreciating merits

SH. VIKRANT KANSHAL,BATHINDA vs. THE ICNOMET-AX OFFICER,, BATHINDA

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 367/Asr/2014 Assessment Year: 2008-09

10). However, proceedings u/s. 147 were initiated in the case of the assessee to bring the said amount to tax in his hands. He would then take us through the bank account of MM for the period 01.04.2007 to 31.03.2008 (PB pgs. 7-9), seeking to emphasize that the cash deposited from time to time was withdrawn. The said explanation

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

Bench: Sh. Vikram Singh Yadav & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

23. The Ld. AR argued that from the above facts and circumstances it is evident that no prejudice is caused to the revenue even if the correct excess stock is treated as income and tax is calculated as per the provisions of section 115BBE. It is a settled law that what is required to be taxed is the correct

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. Therefore, on this count itself the impugned addition Rs.2,35,000/- deserves to be deleted. We thus ‘set aside’ the order of the CIT(A) and delete the addition of Rs.2,35,000/- sustained by him under Sec.68 of the Act. As we have quashed the addition of Rs. 2,35,000/- that

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

10. In the light of the discussions made in the foregoing paras, we are of the considered view, the sole ground raised by the assessee is covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the coordinate Bench in the case of Shri Bhuwan Goyal (supra) discussed above. Since the findings

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JAMMU vs. M/S FIL INDUSTRIES,, SRINAGAR

In the result appeal of the assessee ground no 4 to 4

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

section 80 IB of a sum of Rs. 2,11,80,352/-, includes the aforesaid figures of Rs. 10,14,174/- and Rs. 91,014/-. I.T.A. Nos.288 to 294/Asr/2015 56 22.2. We heard the rival submission & observed the documents. There is factual difference in both the orders of the revenue. The ld. CIT-DR only relied on the orders

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JAMMU vs. M/S FIL INDUSTRIES,, SRINAGAR

In the result appeal of the assessee ground no 4 to 4

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

section 80 IB of a sum of Rs. 2,11,80,352/-, includes the aforesaid figures of Rs. 10,14,174/- and Rs. 91,014/-. I.T.A. Nos.288 to 294/Asr/2015 56 22.2. We heard the rival submission & observed the documents. There is factual difference in both the orders of the revenue. The ld. CIT-DR only relied on the orders

M/S FIL INDUSTRIES LTD,SRINAGAR vs. THE DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SRINAGAR

In the result appeal of the assessee ground no 4 to 4

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

section 80 IB of a sum of Rs. 2,11,80,352/-, includes the aforesaid figures of Rs. 10,14,174/- and Rs. 91,014/-. I.T.A. Nos.288 to 294/Asr/2015 56 22.2. We heard the rival submission & observed the documents. There is factual difference in both the orders of the revenue. The ld. CIT-DR only relied on the orders

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMMU vs. M/S. FIL INDUSTRIES LTD, SRINAGAR

In the result appeal of the assessee ground no 4 to 4

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

section 80 IB of a sum of Rs. 2,11,80,352/-, includes the aforesaid figures of Rs. 10,14,174/- and Rs. 91,014/-. I.T.A. Nos.288 to 294/Asr/2015 56 22.2. We heard the rival submission & observed the documents. There is factual difference in both the orders of the revenue. The ld. CIT-DR only relied on the orders

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JAMMU vs. M/S FILL INDUSTRIES,, SRINAGAR

In the result appeal of the assessee ground no 4 to 4

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

section 80 IB of a sum of Rs. 2,11,80,352/-, includes the aforesaid figures of Rs. 10,14,174/- and Rs. 91,014/-. I.T.A. Nos.288 to 294/Asr/2015 56 22.2. We heard the rival submission & observed the documents. There is factual difference in both the orders of the revenue. The ld. CIT-DR only relied on the orders

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMMU vs. M/S. FIL INDUSTRIES LTD, SRINAGAR

In the result appeal of the assessee ground no 4 to 4

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

section 80 IB of a sum of Rs. 2,11,80,352/-, includes the aforesaid figures of Rs. 10,14,174/- and Rs. 91,014/-. I.T.A. Nos.288 to 294/Asr/2015 56 22.2. We heard the rival submission & observed the documents. There is factual difference in both the orders of the revenue. The ld. CIT-DR only relied on the orders