SHRIMATI JATINDER KAUR(ALIAS AMRITA),JALANDHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JALANDHAR

In the result all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

68 of proving the cash credit were satisfied by the assessee the addition should have been deleted rather than upholding the same u/s 56(1)(vii) of the Act. 4 That even otherwise on facts too, the CIT(A) has erred in holding that the Gift to the daughter by his father during the year which came from the Bank

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 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

68 of the Act. Aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) partly allowed the ground of the assessee. Being aggrieved,the assessee filed an appeal before us. 4. The ld. AR vehemently argued and has divided the arguments in two parts; one part is related to the merit and another part is related

PANKAJ AUTOMOBILES PRIVATE LIMITED ,G.T ROAD, MOGA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE, FEROZEPUR

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

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

section 68 of Income Tax Act, 1961. So, the additions of Rs. 80,00,000.00 made by the Assessing Officer is bad in law and must be deleted. 7 (v) The assessee craves leave to argue on any other question of law and/or facts at the time of hearing of this appeal.” 3. Condonation of delay: It is pointed

MESERS GANESH RICE MILLS,MUKTSAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-II, BATHINDA

In the result the appeal of the assessee ITA No

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

section 115BBE for addition U/s 68. In argument the ld. Counsel has mentioned that the provisions of sec 68 of the Act are not at all applicable in the case of the Assessee. The amount of Rs. 15,54,20,000/- pertains to the sales as made by the assessee to M/s Vasudev Sales Corporation. The entire amount

MAHASHAKTI FINANCIERS LIMITED,AMAN TOWER, NATIONAL HIGHWAY vs. ITO WARD 1(2), JAMMU, AAYKAR BHAWAN, RAIL HEADCOMPLEX, PANAMA CHOWK, JAMMU

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

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Brajesh Kumar Singh

68 of the Act, 1961 on account of unexplained share application money, flowing from the inability of the assessee to prove the identity, the genuineness of the transactions and the creditworthiness of the share holders. 3. Another ground taken by the assessee was that the order has been passed by the first appellate authority without any proper opportunity of hearing

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

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)

127-A. Collection of dues payable to notified Sikh Gurdwaras left in Pakistan. - (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force or in this Act or in any administrative scheme, rules or bye-laws framed under the Act, the Board shall be the sole authority to receive, collect, realize and take possession from

BHAGAT PARKASH KAMAL SHARMA,JAMMU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -1 (1), JAMMU

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

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

127(2) of the Act dated 01.10.2019 and the current jurisdiction is fixed in ITO Ward-1(1), Jammu. Accordingly, the appeal order was passed by the NFAC. So, the appeal is under jurisdiction of ITAT, Amritsar Bench. I.T.A. No.184/Asr/2021 3 Assessment Year: 2013-14 4. Brief fact of the case is that the ld. AR informed that the appeal

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