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

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

26 I.T.A. Nos. 346 & 347/Asr/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 sales, and bank statements and held that 10 ITA No. 26/Asr/2024 Rama Mittal v. ITO purchases were made through a recognized broker via cheque, establishing their genuineness and, thus, he directed Assessing Officer to delete addition of LTCG claimed as exempt under section 10(38) - Tribunal upheld Commissioner

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

26 I.T.A. Nos. 346 & 347/Asr/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 sales, and bank statements and held that 10 ITA No. 26/Asr/2024 Rama Mittal v. ITO purchases were made through a recognized broker via cheque, establishing their genuineness and, thus, he directed Assessing Officer to delete addition of LTCG claimed as exempt under section 10(38) - Tribunal upheld Commissioner

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

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

26,68,850/- in the bank account of the assessee. In that view of the matter the addition sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) is deleted. 2 13. In my view, when the assessee has established on record Sanjeev that it had receipts from sale of agricultural produce, only Kumar Malik because some invoices relating to sale are not available

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

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

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

section 292C of the Act under which presumption is raised which is rebuttable and the assessee has duly rebutted by submitting affidavit of her father which has been accepted by the department. 12. That the assessee reserves the right to amend, alter or raise an additional grounds of appeal before the disposal of this appeal.” Search and seizure proceedings

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

section 133A of the Act, with reference to the books of accounts, and that the disputed amount has been surrendered as undisclosed income of the appellant over and above the regular business income. 7. We have heard both the sides, perused the record, impugned orders and case law cited before us. Admittedly, the appellant had made the surrender

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

26,386/- is dismissed. The ground of the assessee is allowed. 21.3. In the result the appeal of the asseessee, ground no. 2 to 2.1 are allowed I.T.A. Nos.288 to 294/Asr/2015 55 ITA 417/Asr/2015- Ground-3&3.1 and Ground 4 &4.1:- 22. The ld. Counsel argued that ground Nos. 3 to 3.1 with regards to deduction under section

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

26,386/- is dismissed. The ground of the assessee is allowed. 21.3. In the result the appeal of the asseessee, ground no. 2 to 2.1 are allowed I.T.A. Nos.288 to 294/Asr/2015 55 ITA 417/Asr/2015- Ground-3&3.1 and Ground 4 &4.1:- 22. The ld. Counsel argued that ground Nos. 3 to 3.1 with regards to deduction under section

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

26,386/- is dismissed. The ground of the assessee is allowed. 21.3. In the result the appeal of the asseessee, ground no. 2 to 2.1 are allowed I.T.A. Nos.288 to 294/Asr/2015 55 ITA 417/Asr/2015- Ground-3&3.1 and Ground 4 &4.1:- 22. The ld. Counsel argued that ground Nos. 3 to 3.1 with regards to deduction under section

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

26,386/- is dismissed. The ground of the assessee is allowed. 21.3. In the result the appeal of the asseessee, ground no. 2 to 2.1 are allowed I.T.A. Nos.288 to 294/Asr/2015 55 ITA 417/Asr/2015- Ground-3&3.1 and Ground 4 &4.1:- 22. The ld. Counsel argued that ground Nos. 3 to 3.1 with regards to deduction under section

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

26,386/- is dismissed. The ground of the assessee is allowed. 21.3. In the result the appeal of the asseessee, ground no. 2 to 2.1 are allowed I.T.A. Nos.288 to 294/Asr/2015 55 ITA 417/Asr/2015- Ground-3&3.1 and Ground 4 &4.1:- 22. The ld. Counsel argued that ground Nos. 3 to 3.1 with regards to deduction under section

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

26,386/- is dismissed. The ground of the assessee is allowed. 21.3. In the result the appeal of the asseessee, ground no. 2 to 2.1 are allowed I.T.A. Nos.288 to 294/Asr/2015 55 ITA 417/Asr/2015- Ground-3&3.1 and Ground 4 &4.1:- 22. The ld. Counsel argued that ground Nos. 3 to 3.1 with regards to deduction under section

M/S FIL INDUSTRIES LTD,SRINAGAR vs. THE ADDL. 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

26,386/- is dismissed. The ground of the assessee is allowed. 21.3. In the result the appeal of the asseessee, ground no. 2 to 2.1 are allowed I.T.A. Nos.288 to 294/Asr/2015 55 ITA 417/Asr/2015- Ground-3&3.1 and Ground 4 &4.1:- 22. The ld. Counsel argued that ground Nos. 3 to 3.1 with regards to deduction under section

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

26,386/- is dismissed. The ground of the assessee is allowed. 21.3. In the result the appeal of the asseessee, ground no. 2 to 2.1 are allowed I.T.A. Nos.288 to 294/Asr/2015 55 ITA 417/Asr/2015- Ground-3&3.1 and Ground 4 &4.1:- 22. The ld. Counsel argued that ground Nos. 3 to 3.1 with regards to deduction under section

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

26,386/- is dismissed. The ground of the assessee is allowed. 21.3. In the result the appeal of the asseessee, ground no. 2 to 2.1 are allowed I.T.A. Nos.288 to 294/Asr/2015 55 ITA 417/Asr/2015- Ground-3&3.1 and Ground 4 &4.1:- 22. The ld. Counsel argued that ground Nos. 3 to 3.1 with regards to deduction under section

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

26,386/- is dismissed. The ground of the assessee is allowed. 21.3. In the result the appeal of the asseessee, ground no. 2 to 2.1 are allowed I.T.A. Nos.288 to 294/Asr/2015 55 ITA 417/Asr/2015- Ground-3&3.1 and Ground 4 &4.1:- 22. The ld. Counsel argued that ground Nos. 3 to 3.1 with regards to deduction under section

SMT. KIRAN MAHAJAN,JAMMU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2) JAMMU

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 319 & S.A. 15/(Asr)/2017 Assessment Year: 2012-13

26,315/- on account of so- called bogus sundry creditors without rejecting the books of accounts and without invoking the provisions of section 145(3) of the IT Act, 1961. As such the addition made is bad and is illegal in the eyes of law and the same may be deleted.’ 4. Before us, the thrust of the assessee