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 the position of law that no addition u/s 68 can be made where books of account had been rejected by the AO u/s 145(3) and again relying upon the same books of accounts for the purpose of section 68. a) Alternatively, it is humbly submitted that when the A.O. has rejected the books of account under section

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 - Whether Tribunal had rightly concluded that there was no merit in appeal against Commissioner (Appeals) order - Held, yes [Para 4] [In favour of assessee]” 15. Recently, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of PCIT v. Dipansu Mohapatra [2024] 160 taxmann.com 289 (SC) dismissed against order of High Court that where assessee provided all details of purchase

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 - Whether Tribunal had rightly concluded that there was no merit in appeal against Commissioner (Appeals) order - Held, yes [Para 4] [In favour of assessee]” 15. Recently, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of PCIT v. Dipansu Mohapatra [2024] 160 taxmann.com 289 (SC) dismissed against order of High Court that where assessee provided all details of purchase

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

M/S G G OILS & FATS PVT.LTD ,BATHINDA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BATHINDA

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi. T. A. No. 508/Asr/2017 Assessment Year: 2014-15

section 115-O;’ It is thus only the dividend declared, distributed or paid by a company, on which tax u/s. 115-O has been suffered, that falls u/s. 10(34), and would therefore not stand to be assessed u/s. 2(24)(ii) r/w s. 56 of the Act. The said dividend would only be that envisaged

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

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

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

SH. DIDAR SINGH S/O SH. PREM SINGH,KAPURTHALA vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KAPURTHALA

In the result, the assessee succeeds

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N.K.Choudhryita No.542(Asr)/2016 Assessment Year:2008-09

68 cannot be sustained. Further, it was also submitted that ITO has not given any warning to the assessee/appellant herein before putting question to the assessee/appellant to the effect that any admission/confession can be used against him in any proceedings under the Act and its repercussion and, nor he was made aware of his right to engage lawyer

THE ASSISATANT COMMISSIOENR OF INCOME-TAX,, HOSHIARPUR vs. SH. MANINDER SINGH CHEEMA, HOSHIARPUR

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

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 719/Asr/2013 Assessment Year: 2007-08

34 ITR 669 (MP)] CIT v. Durga Prasad More [1971] 82 ITR 540 (SC) CIT v. Biju Patnaik [1986] 160 ITR 674 (SC) Sumati Dayal v. CIT [1995] 214 ITR 801 (SC) CIT vs. P. Mohanakala &Others [2007] 291 ITR 278 (SC) CIT v. Lachhmandass Oswal [1980] 126 ITR 446 (P&H) Hari Chand Virender Paul

BHUPENDRA FLOUR MILLS PVT LTD,BATHINDA vs. ITO, WARD 1(1), BATHINDA, BATHINDA

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of out above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Shri Udayandasgupta, Jm आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.54/Asr/2025 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) M/S Bhupendra Flour Mills Pvt Ltd. Ito Ward - 1(1) बनाम/ Railway Road Central Revenue Building Bhatinda, Punjab – 151001 Civil Lines, Bhatinda Vs. Punjab - 151001 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaccb-6192-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) - Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Farhat Khan (Cit) – Ld. Dr (Virtual) सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05-02-2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 20.02.2026 : आदेश / O R D E R

10(37), Section 14, Section 45(5), Section 56(2)(viii), Section 145B(1) and Section 194LA of the Act makes it abundantly clear that any income which arises or is deemed to arise or accrue in India is chargeable to tax in the hands of a resident assessee. (v) The definition of “interest” under

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

10 supra ) had also submitted that no addition can be made for the years, which were unabated/ completed assessment , in the absence of incriminating material. Admittedly there was no incriminating material found during the course of search and further the CIT DR had failed to point out any incriminating material found during the course of hearing before us. Hence additions

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

10 supra ) had also submitted that no addition can be made for the years, which were unabated/ completed assessment , in the absence of incriminating material. Admittedly there was no incriminating material found during the course of search and further the CIT DR had failed to point out any incriminating material found during the course of hearing before us. Hence additions

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

10 supra ) had also submitted that no addition can be made for the years, which were unabated/ completed assessment , in the absence of incriminating material. Admittedly there was no incriminating material found during the course of search and further the CIT DR had failed to point out any incriminating material found during the course of hearing before us. Hence additions

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

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee is allowed

68,\nhowever, Commissioner exercising his\nrevisionary power under section 263\nset aside assessment orders directing\nAssessing Officer to make fresh\nassessment after conducting detailed\nenquiry and upon satisfying on\ngenuneness of transaction - Whether\norder of Commissioner was not based\non irrelevant considerations and\nfurther in present circumstances, he\nwas not obliged to positively indicate\ndeficiencies in assessment order

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

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

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

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

34 12. We consider the order of both the revenue authorities and followed the observation of the Coordinate Bench. In our considered view, in this point, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed. Claiming Depreciation u/s 32 in Building, Plant and Machinery. 13. The ld. CIT DR placed that the assessee had charged depreciation on the building, plant and machinery