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

100 books of account of assessee had been rejected by (Karnataka) assessing authority, same books of account could not be CIT, Belgaum v. relied upon in an addition on account of trade creditors Bahubali and also for arriving at closing stock - Held, yes [Para 15] NeminathMuttin [In favour of assessee] 2. [2014] 42 Section 68

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

100 Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Cash credit taxmann.com (Agricultural income) - Assessment year 2011-12 - 325 Certain

M/S SANT BABA BHAG SINGH MEMORIAL CHARITABLE SOCIETY,JALANDHAR vs. D.C.I.T, CIRCLE - 1 (EXEMPTION), CHANDIGARH

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

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 432/(Asr)/2017 Assessment Year: 2014-15

68, section 69, section 69A, section 69B, section 69C or section 69D, at the rate of thirty per cent; and (b) the amount of income-tax with which the assessee would have been chargeable had his total income been reduced by the amount of income referred to in clause (a).". The respective cases

SH. BARAT PAL SOOD,,PHAGWARA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,, PHAGWARA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

section 69 that the ITO is not obliged to treat the unexplained investment as income in each and every case. Where the assessee was a young land and could not have earned the income in question, the deletion of addition by the IT A T was justified. In this case, the funds were deposited in the bank account during

SHRI VARINDER KUMAR,BATALA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2, BATALA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

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

100% u/s 271(1 )(c) of the IT Act, 1961. As such the penalty order passed is bad in the eyes of law and the same is liable to be cancelled and further the order passed by the worthy CIT(A) thereby confirming the penalty I.T.A. No.54/Asr/2023 3 Assessment Year: 2010-11 order of the AO is also

M/S BLUE CITY TOWNSHIP & COLONIZERS,AMRITSAR. vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,, AMRITSAR.

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

section 68. 20. Per contra, the Ld. DR supported the impugned order. He contended that the AO observed that the amounts which the assessee paid over and above the prices mentioned in the registries of purchase of land by the assessee company during FY 2008-09 were amounting to a sum of Rs 216,23,000/-, being the cash

SHRI HARVINER SINGH ,PATHANKOT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-6(1), PATHANKOT

In the result, ground Nos

Bench: Shri L.P. Sahu, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.98/Asr/2018 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2013-2014) Shri Harvinder Singh Vs. Ito, Ward-6(1), Pathankot S/O Shri Sohan Singh, C/O M/S Janta Auto Trading Co. Dalhousie Road, Pathankot स्थायी ऱेखा सं./Panno. : Aceps 5287 R (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Tej Mohan Singh, Advocate & Shri Vaibhav Aggarwal, Ca राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Charan Dass, Dr

Section 68 are not applicable in the instant case as there are no cash credits which are appearing in the books of account and as such application of wrong provisions of the Act not remotely connected is arbitrary and unjustified. 5. That the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) IS erroneous, arbitrary, opposed

SMT. SATVIR KAUR W/O SH. SHINDER SINGH,FEROZEPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

100,000/-. 3. It is pertinent to mention here that the case of the assessee was selected for reassessment u/s 148 of the Act due to the reason of “cash deposit in the bank account of the assessee amounting to Rs. 60,00,000/- and time deposit of Rs. 30,00,000 during the year under consideration

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3), ABOHAR, INCOME TAX OFFICE, ABOHAR vs. RAJ KUMAR, ABOHAR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

Section 68 r.w.s. 115BBE) was rightly made to the returned income of the assessee. Therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 2,41,62,056/- u/s 68 r.w.s. 115BBE on account of Unexplained Sundry Creditors. 5. The Appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, vary any or all the above grounds of appeal

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

68. Temporary loan/advance(s) were, 13 G. G. Oils & Fats Pvt. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT accordingly, even prior thereto, held as falling within the mischief of s. 2(22)(e). As explained in Walchand & Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1975] 100 ITR 598 (Bom), noted with approval in Tarulata Shyam (supra), the fact that the loan or advance was factually repaid

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

100% of bogus purchase should be added to the total income of the assessee. He further submitted that it has been admitted by 8 I.T.A. No. 588/Asr/2024 & Ors Vohra Solvex Pvt Ltd. v. ITO & Ors the proprietors of the respective sellers Mr. Vijay Kumar (proprietor of ESC and Mr. Naresh Kumar, proprietor of UFC) where they have stated in their

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, SAMBA vs. SH. ASHOK KUMAR SHARMA, SAMBA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in Ground nos

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No.475/Asr/2016 Assessment Year: 2013-14

100% deduction and even if the DIC certificate mentions the date of commencement as 09/2009 and the date of issue of certificate as 16/11/2009, in both the cases, the initial assessment year is computed as 2010-11 and as such, there is no dispute. Thus held that since the assessee has fulfilled all the conditions laid down u/s 80IB

SHRI HARPHOOL BHARDWAJ,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFICER, NAKODAR, NAKODAR

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

100 in my pocket that is provedbeyond doubt that I earned from genuine source and I pay it to my brother and confirm that I have paid the amount. Then all the assumptions, permutations, combinations of Ld. AO has no value. Here the credit worthiness is that I had the money in my pocket and paid it to my brother

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, AMRITSAR. vs. SH. SHIV RAJ SINGH BAWA, AMRITSAR.

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is allowed and the assessee’s CO, dismissed

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 407/Asr/2016 Assessment Year: 2012-13

68 ITR 573 (SC); CIT v. Sutlej Cotton Mills Supply Agency Ltd. [1975] 100 ITR 706 (SC). The reference by the ld. Departmental Representative (DR), Sh. Charan Dass, to decisions in Karanpura Development Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1962] 44 ITR 362 (SC) and S.G. Mercantile Corporation (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [1972] 83 ITR 700 (SC) in this regard is also

MAX FINANCIAL SERVICE LIMITED ,NAWANSHAHR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is therefore partly allowed

100% holding company of the unit M/s Neeman Medial International BV. The assessee has claimed that provisions of section 56(2)(viia) of the Act are applicable on the purchaser/recipient of the shares, where the purchase price of shares is less than book net asset value (“Book NAV”) of the shares of the company. In the instant case

SATIA INDUSTRIES LIMITED,MUKTSAR, PUNJAB vs. DCIT, ACIT CIRCLE 1, BATHINDA

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Udayan Das Gupta & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 527/Asr/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2020-21

100 KWH. During the 527-Asr-2024 Satia Industries, Muktsar 14 hearing, the AR brought to the attention of the bench that the DRP had acknowledged this mistake in subsequent years and provided a copy of the directions issued by the DRP under Section 144C(5) for the assessment year 2021-22. i) The Authorized Representative (AR) also drew

SATIA INDUSTRIES LIMITED,MUKTSAR vs. DCIT/ACIT CIRCLE I, BATHINDA, BATHINDA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

68,04,719/- (24.98% of total sales of Rs.62.74 crores) was reduced to Rs. 14,00,93,424/- (calculated @ 24.98% of Rs.56.08 crores) thus resulting in the excess claim of deduction u/s 80IA of Rs.1,67,11,295/- being disallowed and added back to the total income, against which the assessee is in appeal before this tribunal. 5 I.T.A

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(2), JAMMU vs. SH. NEERAJ AGGARWAL , JAMMU

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

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 349/(Asr)/2017 Assessment Year: 2010-11

section (2), have not been regularly followed by the assessee, the Assessing Officer may make an assessment in the manner provided u/s. 144.’ Why, in a particular case the AO may be satisfied with the assesse’s accounts even without the production of account books, so that nothing turns thereon per se, but on the reason/s why he finds

SHRIMATI RAVINDER BAWA,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(3), JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Laliet Kumar & Dr. M. L. Meena

68) e) Copy of A/c No. 0242000125537289. (Paper Book Page No. 69) f) Copy of cash book of branch from 30.06.2010 to 10.07.2010. (Paper Book Page No. 71 to 117) g) Details of FDR’s in the name of Ravinder Bawa from 30.06.2010 to 10.07.2010. (Paper Book Page No. 118) h) Certificate of bank to the effect that no cash