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 while seeking the assessee’s explanation as to nature and source of receipt of money, is to no moment. The principle is in fact well-settled. Reference in this context may be made to the decision in P.K.Palanisamy vs. N. Arumugham & Anr. (arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 2308 of 2009, dated July 23, 2009), wherein

THE ASSISATANT COMMISSIOENR OF INCOME-TAX,, HOSHIARPUR vs. SH. MANINDER SINGH CHEEMA, HOSHIARPUR

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

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 719/Asr/2013 Assessment Year: 2007-08

131 (PB pgs. 27-30, 34-36). The deponents were called for being produced by the AO, i.e., as assessee’s witnesses. Except for Dalwinder Singh (serial no. 6), the other five were produced and deposed before the AO, confirming to have received back the deposit, which was stated to be out of personal savings, through Raj Sher Singh. None

M/S. RAJ DEV ,KOTKAPURA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, FARIDKOT

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is allowed for statistical

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

section 68 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act. 4. Aggrieved by the assessment order of the AO, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A) and the Worthy CIT(A) passed the appellate order dated 31.01.2023 u/s 250 of the Act wherein, the appeal of the assessee was dismissed by observing that the AO has given his clear finding that

HINDVEE SMALL FINANCE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 1(3) JAMMU, JAMMU

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

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Krinwant Sahay

section 68 of the Act 61, is legally not applicable , because in the instant case, there is no cash credit as such, because there is no increase in liability in this case because realization of “loans and advances”( principal amount) during the year will reduce the outstanding balance of “Long term loans and advances ”as reflected in the asset

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3, SRINAGAR vs. M/S TRUMBO CEMENT INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED, SRINAGAR

In the result, the Ground no-1 of the Revenue for ITA No

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

section 68 of the I.T Act, 1961, the AO has to examine three ingredients i.e., identity, genuineness of transactions and creditworthiness of the parties. In this factual and legal background, if we examine, the present case in the light of various evidences filed by the assessee, in order to prove credit found in the form of share capital money

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3, SRINAGAR vs. M/S TRUMBO CEMENT INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED , SRINAGAR

In the result, the Ground no-1 of the Revenue for ITA No

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

section 68 of the I.T Act, 1961, the AO has to examine three ingredients i.e., identity, genuineness of transactions and creditworthiness of the parties. In this factual and legal background, if we examine, the present case in the light of various evidences filed by the assessee, in order to prove credit found in the form of share capital money

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, FARIDKOT, BSNL BUILDING vs. M/S VOHRA SOLVEX PVT. LTD, SADIQ ROAD

In the result, C.O. filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Krinwant Sahay

131- No enquiry in this regard was made and no evidence generally was made available by Assessing Officer-Whether since entire order of Assessing Officer was based merely on statement of Director of assessee without summoning or adducing additional/supplementary evidence of any other person corroborating allegation regarding bogus poyments made by assessee, Tribunal was justified in deleting impugned addition - Held

SH. DIDAR SINGH S/O SH. PREM SINGH,KAPURTHALA vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KAPURTHALA

In the result, the assessee succeeds

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N.K.Choudhryita No.542(Asr)/2016 Assessment Year:2008-09

68 when the appellant was not under any legal obligation to maintain books of accounts as he had opted to file the return under section 44AD is bad in the eyes of law. Hence the order deserves to be struck down. 4. That the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to exercise his judicious acumen in not appreciating that

SHRI SURJIT SINGH,NAWANSHAHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , NAWANSHAHAR

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

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. Nos. 89 To 91/Asr/2022 Assessment Years: 2000-01, 1999-2000 & 2000-01

131 Kanals of agriculture land in village Kishanpur, Tehsil Balachaur, Distt Nawanshahrfrom Sh Jagtar Singh & his wife Gurpreet Kaur, of Ropar, in FY 1998-99 and 1999-2000, by way of eight registered sale deeds executed in two years. It was alleged that in the above land deal, over and above the apparent consideration of Rs.32.74.000/-. cash payments of Rs.48.50

SHRI NAVRAJ SINGH S/O SHRI. SURJIT SINGH,NAWANSHAHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , NAWANSHAHAR

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

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. Nos. 89 To 91/Asr/2022 Assessment Years: 2000-01, 1999-2000 & 2000-01

131 Kanals of agriculture land in village Kishanpur, Tehsil Balachaur, Distt Nawanshahrfrom Sh Jagtar Singh & his wife Gurpreet Kaur, of Ropar, in FY 1998-99 and 1999-2000, by way of eight registered sale deeds executed in two years. It was alleged that in the above land deal, over and above the apparent consideration of Rs.32.74.000/-. cash payments of Rs.48.50

SHRI SURJIT SINGH,NAWANSHAHR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , NAWANSHAHR

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

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. Nos. 89 To 91/Asr/2022 Assessment Years: 2000-01, 1999-2000 & 2000-01

131 Kanals of agriculture land in village Kishanpur, Tehsil Balachaur, Distt Nawanshahrfrom Sh Jagtar Singh & his wife Gurpreet Kaur, of Ropar, in FY 1998-99 and 1999-2000, by way of eight registered sale deeds executed in two years. It was alleged that in the above land deal, over and above the apparent consideration of Rs.32.74.000/-. cash payments of Rs.48.50

M/S BLUE CITY TOWNSHIP & COLONIZERS,AMRITSAR. vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,, AMRITSAR.

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

131(1) of 1 T Act that the then cashier of the Bank has given in writing that the above cash deposits were made by M/s Blue City Township &, Colonizers Pvt Ltd . Amritsar on 4-4-2008 in the Sundry/ GLA account No. 170560100. Accordingly, the AO rightly concluded that the amounts

SH. BASANT KUMAR,FAZILKA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-II, BATHINDA

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

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 514/(Asr)/2017 Assessment Year: 2014-15

131 Taxman 155 (Raj); and C. Kant and Co. v. CIT [1980] 126 ITR 63 (Cal), the said credits were added u/s. 68, and confirmed in appeal for the same reasons. Aggrieved, the assessee is in second appeal. 5. Before us, the ld. AR would rely on an affidavit (dated 23.08.2016) from the creditor as well as on the amount

SHRI DARPAN JAIN,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX WARD - 1(1), JALANDHAR

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

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

131 of the Act as per the details filed by the assessee to confirm the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transactions as per the provisions of section 68

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1 (1), JALANDHAR vs. SHRI ANIL KUMAR WASON, JALANDHAR

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

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No. 164/Asr/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-15

section 143(2), notice was issued by the ld. AO. In scrutiny assessment, assessee filed relevant documents before the ld. AO specially all the Sundry Creditors of the assessee amounts to Rs.5,68,93,270/-. The assessment was completed u/s. 143(3). The ld. AO made an addition amount of Rs.5,68.93,270/- I.T.A. No.164/Asr/2023 3 Assessment Year

YADAV RICE MILLS,MUKTSAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, BATHINDA, BATHINDA

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

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

68 of the Act. 3. That CIT(A) further gravely erred in upholding the estimated addition of Rs. 4,510/- on account of alleged commission paid by resort to provisions of Section 69C of the Act. 3. The facts borne out from records are that the assessee is a partnership firm engaged in the business of milling and sales

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

68) e) Copy of A/c No. 0242000125537289. (Paper Book Page No. 69) f) Copy of cash book of branch from 30.06.2010 to 10.07.2010. (Paper Book Page No. 71 to 117) g) Details of FDR’s in the name of Ravinder Bawa from 30.06.2010 to 10.07.2010. (Paper Book Page No. 118) h) Certificate of bank to the effect that no cash

SH. YASH PAUL KHANNA PROP.,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JALANDHAR

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

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

section quoted by the AO is 143(3) dated 03.02.2006, we find from records that in this case the original assessment was framed on 23.02.2024, u/s 143(3) on a total income of Rs.1,35,690/- (as against return income of Rs.1,06,150/- ), which has been subsequently set aside by the ld. CIT, Jalandhar-II, by invoking