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

68, read with section 153A, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Cash credit (Unexplained cash deposits) -Assessment year 2017-18 - Certain cash was deposited during post-demonetization in account of assessee, engaged in resale of jewellery, diamond etc. -Assessing Officer observed that there were two sets of books of account, i.e., one in computer of accountant and another

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 Act. Section 115 BBE shall, consequently, becomes superfluous. The assessee, therefore, who has challenged this aspect per Gd. 6 before us (Gd. 5 before the ld. CIT(A)), ought to have the benefit of the floor level qua this sum, or any other for 7 Sant Baba Bhag Singh M. C. Society v. Dy. CIT that

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

13-15 of judgement paper book] and the relevant portion is reproduced below: I.T.A. No.117/Asr/2022 23 Assessment Year: 2017-18 “Section 68 read with section 260A, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Cash credits - Assessment year 1989-90 Assessing Officer made additions to returned income of assessee-firm on account of unexplained cash credits in capital accounts

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

3) will not render the Assessing Officer powerless to initiate reassessment proceedings even when intimation under section 143(1) had been issued.” 10. In another case of “Raymond Woolen Mills Limited. Vs ITO”, 236 ITR 34 the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed as under: “In this case, we do not have to give a final decision

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

13. In my view, when the assessee has established on record Sanjeev that it had receipts from sale of agricultural produce, only Kumar Malik because some invoices relating to sale are not available, vs ITO Ward assessee’s claim cannot be rejected. More so, considering the 2(3) I.T.A. No.258/Asr/2022 9 Assessment Year: 2008-09 reasonable quantum of sale proceeds

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

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

3 Asstt. CIT v. Mohd. Ashraf Sheikh ITR of the disputed creditors. However, the assessee failed to prove the creditworthiness and genuineness of the creditor to the satisfaction of the AO in respect of the following creditors: Amount SI No. Name of the assessee advanced (a) Jan wani Mohammed 40,00,000 Rs. 30 lacs from Bhawani Singh

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 cannot be invoked. Further hon’ble Gujarat high court in the case of PCIT Vs. Ojas Tarmake Pvt. Ltd. (supra) has held that where major portion of the credit has been repaid during the year and the AO has accepted the debit entries as genuine, the Hon'ble court on the said facts ultimately affirmed the decision

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 cannot be invoked. Further hon’ble Gujarat high court in the case of PCIT Vs. Ojas Tarmake Pvt. Ltd. (supra) has held that where major portion of the credit has been repaid during the year and the AO has accepted the debit entries as genuine, the Hon'ble court on the said facts ultimately affirmed the decision

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

13 Vikrant Kansal Prop. V. K. Teleservices v ITO before the AO was only by the reason that the AO did not ask the assessee to do so. This observation has not been refuted by the assessee, which goes to show that the books of accounts were duly maintained, therefore I am in concurrence with my ld. brother that section

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

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

13,86,384/- as per the working given below: -\nValue of Excess Stock\nTax as per section 115BBE [1777416*60%*1.25*1.04]\nTax paid by the appellant on income of Rs. 50L surrendered in return of income [50L*30%*1.04]\nTax Payable\n17,77,416/-\n13,86,384/-\n15,60,000/-\nNIL\n22.\nThat before invoking the provisions

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(2), JAMMU vs. SH. NEERAJ AGGARWAL , JAMMU

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 349/(Asr)/2017 Assessment Year: 2010-11

68,663/-, including fresh purchase for Rs.2.15 lacs during AY 2008-09. This needs to be explained, which was not. (g) the assessee’s turnover, at Rs.2733.91 lacs for the current year, up from a range of Rs.8-10 cr. for the preceding 3 years, falls to Rs.1.36 cr. for the following year, which in fact is found

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

13. In the case of Principal Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Mamta Rajiv Kumar Agarwal [2023] 155 taxmann.com 549 (Gujarat), the Hon’ble HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT has observed on exemption of capital gains under Section 10(38) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 as under- “Section 10(38) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Capital gains - Income