SHRI MANMOHAN SINGH KAPUR,HOSHIARPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, JALANDHAR

In the result, appeal of the assessees in ITA Nos

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

68, 69, 69A, 69B, 69C or 69D and reflected in the return of income furnished under section 139. Hence, tax on this income was to be charged under section 115BBE even if it had been declared by the assessee in the return of income. Income has been erroneously taxed at lower tax rate in this case causing prejudice

SMT HARNEET KAUR JUNEJA,JALANDHAR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1, JALANDHAR

In the result, appeal of the assessees in ITA Nos

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

68, 69, 69A, 69B, 69C or 69D and reflected in the return of income furnished under section 139. Hence, tax on this income was to be charged under section 115BBE even if it had been declared by the assessee in the return of income. Income has been erroneously taxed at lower tax rate in this case causing prejudice

SHRI SUKHJIT SINGH,HOSHIARPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, JALANDHAR

In the result, appeal of the assessees in ITA Nos

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

68, 69, 69A, 69B, 69C or 69D and reflected in the return of income furnished under section 139. Hence, tax on this income was to be charged under section 115BBE even if it had been declared by the assessee in the return of income. Income has been erroneously taxed at lower tax rate in this case causing prejudice

HIMALYA SPINNING MILLS,AMRITSAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- 2 (1), AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

Section 68 of the Income Tax Act,1961. The parawise observation of Worthy CIT(A) with submissions of the appellant are as under ; Para Observations of CIT (A)/AO’s observation Submissions No of (reproduced) CIT(A)’s order 3.3 To verify the cash sale, the assessee was The appellant provided asked to produce complete books of stock detail/tally

LATE SMT. MOHINI PURI THROUGH,JAMMU vs. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, JAMMU

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

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A. No. 76/Asr/2013 Assessment Year: 2004-05

section 68 to be invoked there should be a credit in the assessee’s books of account, which are again non-existent. The acceptance of the sum being received from the assessee, i.e., in the case of Shyam Puri (HUF), cannot operate to prejudice the assessee as the assessee is not a party to those proceedings. True, the assesssee

RANJAN AGGARWAL,AMRITSAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-II, AMRITSAR

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

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

section 115BBE for computation of income tax. 5. That order of worthy CIT (A) in bad in law is on facts. 6. That the assessee craves to add/modify or amend any ground of appeal subsequently.” 2. Brief fact of the case is that the addition was made by the ld. AO related to deposit of cash amount of Rs.79

SHRIMATI NANDINI SHARMA ,AMRITSAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

124-142 of the paper book. Even otherwise provisions of section 115BBE are not applicable in case of excess stock. That the amount surrendered has effect of increasing purchase account and correspondingly crediting the profit and loss account. Further, the AR drew the attention of the bench to the statement recorded u/s 131 where the assessee had stated that

MEASAGE G. G OILS & FATS PRIVATE LIMITED,BATHINDA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE- 1 , BATHINDA

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

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No.189/Asr/2018 Assessment Years: 2014-15

124 (AT) (TM) “It is also true that the principles of res judicata do not apply to income tax proceedings but equally important, is the rule of consistency, which has been held to be applicable in tax proceedings. If the facts and circumstances of the earlier year are similar, the same view should ordinarily be followed in the subsequent years

MESERS G.G CONTINEENTAL TRADES PVT.LTD,BATHINDA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-I, BATHINDA

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

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No.189/Asr/2018 Assessment Years: 2014-15

124 (AT) (TM) “It is also true that the principles of res judicata do not apply to income tax proceedings but equally important, is the rule of consistency, which has been held to be applicable in tax proceedings. If the facts and circumstances of the earlier year are similar, the same view should ordinarily be followed in the subsequent years

MESERS P.D SEKHSARIA TRADING COMPANY ,BATHINDA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, BATHINDA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the Stay Petition of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Sh. N. S. Saini & Sh. N. K. Choudhryita No. 331/Asr./2018 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 M/S P. D. Sekhsaria Trading Vs Dy. Commissioner Of Income Company Pvt. Ltd., 4242, Tax, Circle-I, Ground Floor, Gurudwara Singh Bathinda, Punjab Sabha Street, Bathinda, Punjab (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcp1720E Sa No. 03/Asr./2019 (In Ita No. 331/Asr./2018: Asstt. Year : 2014-15) M/S P. D. Sekhsaria Trading Vs Dy. Commissioner Of Income Company Pvt. Ltd., 4242, Tax, Circle-I, Ground Floor, Gurudwara Singh Bathinda, Punjab Sabha Street, Bathinda, Punjab (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcp1720E Assessee By : Shri. Salil Kapoor, Adv. & Shri. Sanat Kapoor, Adv. Revenue By : Shri. M. P. Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing :20.02.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.03.2019 Order Per N. S. Saini: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Cit(A), Bathinda Dated 26.03.2018. 2. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case The Addition/Disallowance Of Rs.4,69,47,808/- Made

124]" There was no mention or proposal to amend section 43(5)(e) in CTT Act 2013 which was only inserted in August 2014 vide F A (No.2) 2014. 39. The specific amendment w.r.t. chargeability of CTT was brought in the Act only in FA (No. 2) in August 2014, but all such transactions of assessee were already carried

SHRI RAJAN SHARMA C/O MEEK ENTERPRISES ,PHAGWARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, PHAGWARA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

section in the order while making the addition. 7 That the assessment order passed by the AO to whom the jurisdiction was transferred cannot be sustained in the absence of fresh notice issued u/s 143(2) of the Income Tax Act 1961. 8 That the orders of AO and CIT (A) are against the Law and facts

MESERS AMARNARTH AGGARWAL BUILDERS PVT. LTD.,BATHINDA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-1, BATHINDA

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

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

section 36(2)(i) no deduction of bad 4 Amarnath Aggarwal B. P Ltd v. Dy.CIT doubtful debts. The assessee’s contention is that the assessee wanted to purchase the land in anticipation for financial gain in Panchkula and paid the amount accordingly. The assessee denied that he never claimed this amount

SHRI SUKHDEV SINGH KANG,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICR, NAKODAR

Bench: Sh. Ravish Sood & Dr. M. L. Meena

section 147 of the Income Tax Act 1961 for the AY 2009-10.” As is discernible from the assessment order, the A.O, viz. Income-tax Officer, Ward-4, Phagwara after reopening the case of the assessee u/s 147 of the Act had transferred the case to the Income-tax Officer, Nakodar. The assessee in compliance to the notice issued

SHRI SHAILENDER VAID,JAMMU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,CIRCLE-1, JAMMU

In the result the captioned appeal of the assessee is allowed, for statistical

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lalmeena, Hon'Ble & Shri Udayan Das Gupta, Hon'Bledeputy Commissioner Of Income- Shailender Vaid, Vs. House No. 179-P, Sector-3, Tax, Circle-L, Jammu (J&K) Trikuta Nagar, Jammu (J & K) Pan No. Aawpv6431C Assessee By Shri Joginder Singh, Ca Shri Charan Dass, Sr. Dr Revenue By Date Of Hearing 24.09.2025. Ft . // .2025. Date Of Pronouncement

section 148 and the Ld. CIT(A) over looked the fact that the Ld. DCIT, Circle 1, 2 Jammu had no jurisdiction to frame the assessment. Hence the assessment had been framed without any jurisdiction of the AD and deserves to be quashed. 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred

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

section 142(1) of the Act on 8.8.2018 and 143(2) of the Act were received. 6. During assessment proceedings, information was filed vide letters dated 05.10.2018, 09.10.2018, 30.11.2018. the information was filled by the assessee credit entry of same date in the account of the assessee includes copy of loan account showing the entry of loan amount