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

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

11. That the annexure to notice u/s 154 of the Income Tax Act mentioned as under:- “Section 11588E(1) of the 1.T. Act, 1961 provides that:- (a) Where the total income of an assessee includes any income referred to in section 68, section 69A, section69B, section69C or section 69D, the income tax payable shall

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

5 Sant Baba Bhag Singh M. C. Society v. Dy. CIT ‘Tax on income referred to in section 68 or section 69 or section 69A or section 69B or section 69C or section 69D. 115 BBE (1) Where the total income of an assessee,— (a) includes any income referred to in section 68

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 - Held, yes [In favor of assessee] Contractor, Kotkapura 11. The ld. CIT DR vehemently argued and relied on the order of the ld. AO. Copy of the said order of para 6.1 is extracted as below: “6.1 The above discussion clearly shows that the assessee had shown inflated cash sales to cover his unaccounted money. Total sale

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

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

5 (Page 15 of the order, and Page No.15 to this Submission) has maintained that he agrees with the principle as determined in the said judgment, but on some baseless suspicion and without proven facts, he has amended his opinion and confirmed the additions made by the Ld. Assessing Officer. The Ld. CIT (Appeals) has accepted that

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

68 without providing the benefit of opening cash in hand and agriculture income earned during the year under consideration. 5. That the CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating that the cash was deposited in bank out of agriculture income earned by the assessee during the year under consideration. I.T.A. No.258/Asr/2022 3 Assessment Year: 2008-09 6. That

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"

5. Being, aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT (A). The assessee has reiterated the same submissions as made before the AO. It was argued that said account was reopened due to astrological reasons. The addition made under section 68was challenged on the ground that section 68 is not attracted as saving bank account Paper

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)

5 ITA No.105/Asr./2017 A.Y. 2008-09 Shri Satish Kumar Vs. Income Tax Officer by the Id. A.R as regards the addition of Rs.10,53,000/- which was made by the A.O under Section 68 of the 'Act', in respect of the cash deposit in the bank account of the assessee. We find substantial force in the \contention

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

5 which was confirmed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi are against the facts of the facts of the case and are untenable under the law. The authorities below did not appreciate that this case does not fall within the mischief of section 68 of the Act. The further submitted that

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

5, held that: “The initial onus is upon the assessee to establish three things necessary to obviate the mischief of Section 68. Those are: (i) identity of the investors; (ii) their creditworthiness/investments; and (iii) genuineness of the transaction. Only when these three ingredients are established prima facie, the department is required to undertake further exercise.” It has been held

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

section 68” 6.1 In this regard, it appears that these names and the amount have been taken from the 03 parties out of 07 are tabulated as under: Name of Person Amount Received Sh.Vinod Kumar 20,00,000/- Smt. Pawandeep Kaur 20,00,000/- Sh. Jagjit Singh 11,00,000/- 6.2 The ld. AO further observed that these parties

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

section 68” 6.1 In this regard, it appears that these names and the amount have been taken from the 03 parties out of 07 are tabulated as under: Name of Person Amount Received Sh.Vinod Kumar 20,00,000/- Smt. Pawandeep Kaur 20,00,000/- Sh. Jagjit Singh 11,00,000/- 6.2 The ld. AO further observed that these parties

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

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

5,72,590.00 u/s 68 14. of the Act of wages payable on the basis of not establishing identity of the parties and genuineness of the transactions. 15. The Appellant stated in the written submission that the addition is unjustified and against the law. Further the entire addition of Rs 572590.00 u/s 68 of the Act, is based on presumptions

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

5,72,590.00 u/s 68 14. of the Act of wages payable on the basis of not establishing identity of the parties and genuineness of the transactions. 15. The Appellant stated in the written submission that the addition is unjustified and against the law. Further the entire addition of Rs 572590.00 u/s 68 of the Act, is based on presumptions

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

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

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(38), of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Cash credit (Share transactions) - Assessment year 2005-06 - Assessee had claimed

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

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(38), of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Cash credit (Share transactions) - Assessment year 2005-06 - Assessee had claimed