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

38) had rightly been deleted - Held, yes [Paras 4 and 5] [In favour of assessee]” 14. In another case of Principal Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Indravan Jain, HUF [2023] 156 taxmann.com 605 (Bombay) the Hon’ble HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY held as under- “section 68, read with section 10

M/S ACTIVE TOOLS (P). LIMITED,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -II, JALANDHAR

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

10. The case law of Kim Pharma Ltd. vs. CIT (supra) as relied upon by the learned DR is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case as in that case the Hon'ble Court had reproduced the findings of Tribunal that assessee during the course of survey had surrendered the income as incomefrom other sources. Whereas

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

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

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee is allowed

10 (38) was based on a proposal given by\nAssessing Officer, exercise of jurisdiction under section 263 was not justified - Held, yes\n[Paras 8 and 9] [In favour of assessee]\n27.\nThe Ld AR further argued on applicability of clause(a) of explanation 2 to\nsection 263 and relied upon the Judgment of Sh. Narayan TatuRane

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

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

38,31,384/- is deleted. The ground raised is thus allowed.” 18. In our considered view that the ld. CIT(A) has taken a correct view in relation to the bank guarantee charges paid on bank amount of Rs.38,31,384/-. We are not intervening in the order of the ld. CIT(A) and accordingly ground

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

38,31,384/- is deleted. The ground raised is thus allowed.” 18. In our considered view that the ld. CIT(A) has taken a correct view in relation to the bank guarantee charges paid on bank amount of Rs.38,31,384/-. We are not intervening in the order of the ld. CIT(A) and accordingly ground

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

38,31,384/- is deleted. The ground raised is thus allowed.” 18. In our considered view that the ld. CIT(A) has taken a correct view in relation to the bank guarantee charges paid on bank amount of Rs.38,31,384/-. We are not intervening in the order of the ld. CIT(A) and accordingly ground

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

38,31,384/- is deleted. The ground raised is thus allowed.” 18. In our considered view that the ld. CIT(A) has taken a correct view in relation to the bank guarantee charges paid on bank amount of Rs.38,31,384/-. We are not intervening in the order of the ld. CIT(A) and accordingly ground

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

38,31,384/- is deleted. The ground raised is thus allowed.” 18. In our considered view that the ld. CIT(A) has taken a correct view in relation to the bank guarantee charges paid on bank amount of Rs.38,31,384/-. We are not intervening in the order of the ld. CIT(A) and accordingly ground

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

38,31,384/- is deleted. The ground raised is thus allowed.” 18. In our considered view that the ld. CIT(A) has taken a correct view in relation to the bank guarantee charges paid on bank amount of Rs.38,31,384/-. We are not intervening in the order of the ld. CIT(A) and accordingly ground

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

38,31,384/- is deleted. The ground raised is thus allowed.” 18. In our considered view that the ld. CIT(A) has taken a correct view in relation to the bank guarantee charges paid on bank amount of Rs.38,31,384/-. We are not intervening in the order of the ld. CIT(A) and accordingly ground

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

38,31,384/- is deleted. The ground raised is thus allowed.” 18. In our considered view that the ld. CIT(A) has taken a correct view in relation to the bank guarantee charges paid on bank amount of Rs.38,31,384/-. We are not intervening in the order of the ld. CIT(A) and accordingly ground

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

38,31,384/- is deleted. The ground raised is thus allowed.” 18. In our considered view that the ld. CIT(A) has taken a correct view in relation to the bank guarantee charges paid on bank amount of Rs.38,31,384/-. We are not intervening in the order of the ld. CIT(A) and accordingly ground

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

38,31,384/- is deleted. The ground raised is thus allowed.” 18. In our considered view that the ld. CIT(A) has taken a correct view in relation to the bank guarantee charges paid on bank amount of Rs.38,31,384/-. We are not intervening in the order of the ld. CIT(A) and accordingly ground

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 68 of the Act. The argument of the sum not representing ‘real income’, though not specifically advanced before us, is implicit in the argument advanced with reference to the genuineness of the loan/ advance, and therefore considered. The same would not carry the assessee’s case further, as would even otherwise be apparent from the host of decisions

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3, SRINAGAR vs. M/S TRUMBO CEMENT INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED, SRINAGAR

In the result, the Ground no-1 of the Revenue for ITA No

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

38,701/- made by the AO on account of disallowance of disallowance u/s 14A. As the A.O has observed that the assessee has utilized business funds for share application money and there was no close proximity to the business of the assessee company and investment in Tramboo Industries Pvt. Ltd. and the assessee has utilized business funds for earning dividend

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3, SRINAGAR vs. M/S TRUMBO CEMENT INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED , SRINAGAR

In the result, the Ground no-1 of the Revenue for ITA No

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

38,701/- made by the AO on account of disallowance of disallowance u/s 14A. As the A.O has observed that the assessee has utilized business funds for share application money and there was no close proximity to the business of the assessee company and investment in Tramboo Industries Pvt. Ltd. and the assessee has utilized business funds for earning dividend

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

10(38) on long-term capital gain on sale of shares an basis of statement of entry operators recorded on various dates in some other proceedings not connected with assessee and no opportunity to cross-examine so- called entry providers was given to assessee thereby violating principles of natural Justice, Tribunal was Justified in deleting addition made by Assessing Officer