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

e) All the purchases are from identifiable parties and majorly all the payments for the purchases have been made through normal banking channels and nothing has been I.T.A. No.195/Asr/2022 11 Assessment Year: 2017-18 doubted about such purchases. Thus, all the purchases are fully vouched. The sales are also fully vouched but majorly, the sales are made in cash

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

13 SA No. 03/Asr./2019 P.D. Sekhsaria Trading Company Pvt. Ltd. 23. In the present case NCDEX was already a "recognised association" since 20-11-2003, (refer Page no. 3 & 4 of paper book- mail received from NCDEX). Thus the Appellant satisfied the requirement of the section as they existed on the date when the transactions were carried

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

3)/ Bangalore, ITA 446/Bang/2010 date of pronouncement dated 20/06/2011. The relevant part from paragraph 7.5 is extracted as below: - “Thus, it is obvious that the fiction created in section 2(22)(e) only refersto pure advances or loans. Any amount paid on account of genuine businesstransaction between the entities falls outside the ambit of section 2(22)(e

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

3)/ Bangalore, ITA 446/Bang/2010 date of pronouncement dated 20/06/2011. The relevant part from paragraph 7.5 is extracted as below: - “Thus, it is obvious that the fiction created in section 2(22)(e) only refersto pure advances or loans. Any amount paid on account of genuine businesstransaction between the entities falls outside the ambit of section 2(22)(e

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

E) (in ITA No. 1495/Del/2011, dated 30/3/2012), has held the provision of section 115BBC as not applicable even in the absence of confirmation/s. Further, the donations are toward corpus so that there is no obligation to apply it for charitable purposes, even as the assessee has indeed applied over 100% of its’ income, for which it places on record

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 Assessment Year: 2017-18 6. In view of above, the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer on 24.12.2019 is held to be erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of revenue in terms of provisions contained in clause (a) of Explanation 2 below sub section (1) of section

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

e brought to tax as per the provisions section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. During the appellate proceedings, the appellant has taken the ground that no addition can be made under section 68 of the Income Tax Act where the assessee is not maintaining any books of account as Section 68 of the Income

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)

e. Umaid Charitable trust v/s Union of India (2008) 307 ITR 226 (RAJ.) f. Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Social Service Centre (2001) 250 ITR 39 (AP) g. Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanam vs CCIT (2001) 251 ITR 849 (AP)“ 6. Registration u/s 12AA: An issue raised by the Revenue during the course of argument. a. In this regard, it is pertinent

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

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

3 parties namely that; Name of Person Amount Received Sh.Vinod Kumar 20,00,000/- I.T.A. Nos. 250 & 359/Asr/2025 4 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Sh. Jagjit Singh 11,00,000/- Smt. Pawandeep Kaur 20,00,000/- 5. Aggrieved, both the parties have filed these cross appeals. We have heard Sh. Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate, ld. counsel for the assessee at length

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

3 parties namely that; Name of Person Amount Received Sh.Vinod Kumar 20,00,000/- I.T.A. Nos. 250 & 359/Asr/2025 4 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Sh. Jagjit Singh 11,00,000/- Smt. Pawandeep Kaur 20,00,000/- 5. Aggrieved, both the parties have filed these cross appeals. We have heard Sh. Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate, ld. counsel for the assessee at length

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

M/S G G OILS & FATS PVT.LTD ,BATHINDA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BATHINDA

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi. T. A. No. 508/Asr/2017 Assessment Year: 2014-15

68. Temporary loan/advance(s) were, 13 G. G. Oils & Fats Pvt. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT accordingly, even prior thereto, held as falling within the mischief of s. 2(22)(e). As explained in Walchand & Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1975] 100 ITR 598 (Bom), noted with approval in Tarulata Shyam (supra), the fact that the loan or advance was factually repaid

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

e) information was sought during assessment proceedings in respect of the assessee’s bank accounts, i.e., the details, including narration thereto, of the transactions – debit or credit, in the sum of Rs.50,000/- or more therein; the assessee maintaining 5 bank accounts. No narrations were provided, with the transactions raising doubts as to the genuineness of the said transaction

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

e-return- AO noticed that there was escapement of income as Assessee had billed royalty under head other income-AO completed assessment u/s. 143(3) restricting TDS-Assessment was reopened to consider relevant TDS relating to income offered by assessee and income included in TDS certificate, which included share of other assessee also -CIT(A) confirmed action of AO-Held

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

e-return- AO noticed that there was escapement of income as Assessee had billed royalty under head other income-AO completed assessment u/s. 143(3) restricting TDS-Assessment was reopened to consider relevant TDS relating to income offered by assessee and income included in TDS certificate, which included share of other assessee also -CIT(A) confirmed action of AO-Held

SATIA INDUSTRIES LIMITED,MUKTSAR, PUNJAB vs. DCIT, ACIT CIRCLE 1, BATHINDA

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Udayan Das Gupta & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 527/Asr/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2020-21

13) in consequence of directions of DRP u/sl44C(5) of the Income Tax Act,1961 in reducing the deduction claimed by the assessee u/s 80-IA by Rs 29,77,27,308/- is illegal, without jurisdiction and bad in law. 527-Asr-2024 Satia Industries, Muktsar 4 1.1 That the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) in consequence of directions

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, SAMBA vs. SH. ASHOK KUMAR SHARMA, SAMBA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in Ground nos

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No.475/Asr/2016 Assessment Year: 2013-14

e-filing on 30.09 2013 declaring a net income of Rs. 3,31,920/- after claiming deductions of Rs.1,00,000 u/s. 80C and Rs.12,50,358/-u/s. 80IB of the Income tax Act. The case was selected for scrutiny and during the assessment proceedings, the AO asked the assessee to produce books of account and other relevant details