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

section 68. 11. That the learned assessing Officer has erred in rejecting the books of accounts u/s145(3), without serving the show cause notice as embedded in Sec 144 read with Sec145(3). I.T.A. No.195/Asr/2022 4

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

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

4 (Delhi - Trib.) Mod Creations Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Cash credits - Assessment year 2002-03 - During relevant assessment year, assessee-company had raised unsecuredloans from five persons (P.) Ltd. v. who were its directors and shareholders - Payments were made through banking channels Income-tax - During assessment proceedings, assessee furnished income-tax returns and bank statements

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

4. 2017] 88 taxmann.com 400 Section 69 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - (Cochin - Trib.)IN THE ITAT Unexplained investments (Immovable I.T.A. No.258/Asr/2022 17 Assessment Year: 2008-09 COCHIN BENCH property) - Assessment year 2010-11 - Where cashdeposited in bank account of Smt.SuryakalaGopakumar assessee was explained from sale proceeds v. of her husband's property and assessee's husband

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"

4 of 11 amount as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act. Without prejudice to the above

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

4. Additional Informations: a. On perusal of the bank account No. 0334SB9741, attached herewith as Page No. 25. the total deposits in the bank account during the relevant year corresponding to the AY in appeal, was only Rs 41,55,995.00 were as in the Appellant Order, the bank deposits have been mentioned as 68

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

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

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

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

4 8. These grounds of appeal challenge the addition made by the AO on account of unexplained cash deposit in his bank account u/s 68 of the Act amounting to Rs. 16,70,500/-. 8.1 In the course of assessment proceedings, the AO noticed that the complete details/documents were not filed by the AR of appellant and again a notice

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

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

Bench: Sh. Vikram Singh Yadav & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

11- 4-1955, 14(XL-35) wherein the Board ordered that the officers of the Income-tax should not take advantage of ignorance of an assessee as to his rights. It is one of their duties to assist the taxpayers in every reasonable way, particularly in the matter of claiming and securing reliefs and in this regard, the officer should

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

4. (a) That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Hon'ble CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld. AO, in making an addition of Rs.2,11,81,016/-, on account of long term capital gain treated as income from undisclosed sources, without considering the facts of the case

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

4. (a) That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Hon'ble CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld. AO, in making an addition of Rs.2,11,81,016/-, on account of long term capital gain treated as income from undisclosed sources, without considering the facts of the case

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

section 68 are of the assessee and not of any other (partner). The credit (to the partners’ account) being in the books of the partnership firm, addition qua the said sum (credit) could only be in the case of the firm. We are unable to see as to how the same supports the assessee’s case in the instant

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)

4,13,72,346.00 18096963.00 19871026.00 TOTAL(C)…… 21,63,23,199.60 27,62,97,379.70 32,26,85,643.42 32,09,63,435.41 GRANDTOTAL[A+B+C]…… 38,51,33,786.67 46,53,19,010.31 55,14,00,129.53 58,42,91,867.01 BIFURCATIONOFEXPENSES EDUCATIONFUND 3/31/2011 3/31/2012 11,56,19,606.30 Exp. On Education for Colleges& Schools 121973349.00 OtherExp

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

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