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

3) and again relying upon the same books of accounts for the purpose of section 68. 11. That the learned

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 of the Income Tax Act. 4. That while confirming the above additions, the ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the special provisions of section 115BEE read with section 68/69 were not applicable to the case of trust, inasmuch as, once the donations are held to be anonymous, the same are hit only by the provisions

DR. HARPRIT SINGH ,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Choudhry & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.संसंसंसं././././I.T.A No.195/Asr/2018 िनधा"रणवष"/A.Y.:2011-12 िनधा"रणवष" िनधा"रणवष" िनधा"रणवष" Dr. Harprit Singh, C/O M/S. Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Orthonova Hospital, Near Nari Income-Tax, Niketan, Nakoddar Road, Central Circle –Ii, Jalandhar Jalandhar(Pb) (Pb) Pan: Acmps 7237 F अपीलाथ"Appellant अपीलाथ" ""यथ"/Respondent ""यथ" अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" ""यथ" ""यथ"

3) Pathankot [I.T.A.No. 445 to 449/ASR/2015-dated 17.06.2016, copy placed on record. The learned counsel for the assessee further, relied in the case of PCIT V. Bhaichand H Gandhi [1983] 141 ITR 67 (Bombay) in support of contention that no addition under section 68 can be made when no Dr. Harprit Singh v. DCIT-CC-II, Jalandhar/I.T.A. No.195/ASR/2018/A.Y.:11

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

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

11 Assessment Year: 2017-18 1ST ISSUE INTRODUCTION OF CAPITAL:- 4. Considering the two issues the counsel has divide issues separately and argued accordingly. First, the counsel pointed out the first issue “introduction of capital contribution” by the partners. 4.1 The ld. Counsel first pointed out that the ld. AO issued notice u/s 142(1) on dated 17.10.2019 which

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

11 Farukh Ahmad Zeb v. ITO unexplained income of the assessee. The Ld. CIT (A) has been justified in confirming the addition that It doesn't matter whether the addition was made by mentioning section 68 of the Income Tax Act as the appellant has not given any explanation on the source of the deposits of Rs.99

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

3 account of cash deposited in ICICI Bank Account No 006601529228 u/s 68 without appreciating that bank passbook or statement are not books of accounts and as such no addition can be made u/s 68. In argument it is placed that the appellant was not maintaining books of accounts during the year under consideration. The whole addition

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

3. Section 68 not applicable to business receipts recorded as sales In this case return was filed by the assessee therein declaring income under presumptive basis by applying rate of profit u/s 44AD. A copy of the ITR along- with computation of income relating to AY 2012-13 is enclosed herewith and is available on Page

SHIROMANI GURDWARA PARBANDHAK COMMITTEE vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I,

In the result the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenav.S. Cit – I Shirmoni Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee Amritsar Teja Singh Mundri Hall Sri Amritsar Pan:Aants1981K (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 80G(2)(B), the Central Government notifies places of public worship owing to their historical, archaeological, or artistic importance. The following Gurudwaras due to their historical importance have been notified u/s 80G(2)(B) by the Central Government. 1. Gurudwara Harminder Sahib, SO 1974, Dated 19.06.1965. 2. Gurudwara DukhNiwaran Sahib, SO 885, Dated 31.12.1975. 3. Gurudwara Shri Hemkunt

SH. SATISH KUMAR,JALANDHAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,, JALANDHAR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Ravish Soodita No.105/Asr./2017 (Assessment Years: 2008-09)

Section 68 of the Act. Therefore, on this count itself the impugned addition Rs.10,53,000/- deserves to be deleted.” We are of the considered view that as the bank account of an assessee cannot be held to be the ‘books’ of an assessee maintained for any previous year, thus no addition under Sec. 68

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

11, Omar Income Tax, Circle-1, Jammu Colony, Near Malik Market, Narwal, Jammu [PAN: BKJPS 6328B] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sh. Vinay Jamwal, CA Respondent by: Smt. Ratinder Kaur, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 12.07.2023 Date of Pronouncement: 26.07.2023 ORDER Per Dr. M. L. Meena, AM: This appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the order

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

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR vs. M/S JASDEEP KAUR CHADHA, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the revenue appeal is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Udayan Das Gupta & Sh. Khettra Mohan Roy

68 in respect of cash credit received from seven different lenders. 4. Aggrieved the order passed by the AO, the assessee filed an appeal before the First appellate authority, and the Worthy CIT(A) has given part relief to the assessee i.e. relief of Rs. 3,71,00,000/- against unsecured loan taken from 4 parties and upheld the addition

JASDEEP KAUR CHADHA-JALANDHAR,PUNJAB vs. JAO THE DCIT CIRCLE-4 JALANDHAR, PUNJAB

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the revenue appeal is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Udayan Das Gupta & Sh. Khettra Mohan Roy

68 in respect of cash credit received from seven different lenders. 4. Aggrieved the order passed by the AO, the assessee filed an appeal before the First appellate authority, and the Worthy CIT(A) has given part relief to the assessee i.e. relief of Rs. 3,71,00,000/- against unsecured loan taken from 4 parties and upheld the addition

SHRI FAROOQ AHMAD AHANGAR,SRINAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-3(1), SRINAGAR

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

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

68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. That the AO has totally overlooked the facts and circumstances of the case and resorted to bald addition. 3. That the appellant craves leave to add/amend any ground of appeal at the time of hearing.” Farooq Ahmad Ahangar v. ITO ITA No. 606/Asr/2018 (Assessment Year 2009-10): 4. Briefly, the facts

SHRI FAROOQ AHMAD AHANGAR,SRINAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFICER, WARD-3(1, SRINAGAR

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

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

68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. That the AO has totally overlooked the facts and circumstances of the case and resorted to bald addition. 3. That the appellant craves leave to add/amend any ground of appeal at the time of hearing.” Farooq Ahmad Ahangar v. ITO ITA No. 606/Asr/2018 (Assessment Year 2009-10): 4. Briefly, the facts

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

3) r/w s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' hereinafter) dated 23.11.2011 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2008-09. 2. Opening the arguments for and on behalf of the assessee, it was submitted by the ld. counsel, Shri Ashwani Kalia, CA, that the assessee was during the relevant year working as a recovery agent for ICICI Bank

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

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