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

section 43(1) is again untenable, having in fact no relevance for the current year. The argument of the assessment having not been framed in the hands of the AOP (by the AO) is neither (AY 2012-13) ITO v. Shiv Raj Singh Bawa here nor there, i.e., in view of the first appellate authority, in whose order that

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

1(SC) (affirming the landmark decision reported at [1958] 34 ITR 669 (MP)); CIT v. Durga Prasad More [1971] 82 ITR 540 (SC)). As explained in Chuharmal v. CIT [1988] 172 ITR 250 (SC), these provisions only seek to provide statutory 8 Vikrant Kansal Prop. V. K. Teleservices v ITO recognition to the principles of common law jurisprudence as enshrined

SHRI SATISH KUMAR. S/O. SH. HANS RAJ ,HOSHIARPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-4, HOSHIARPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Choudhry & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.संसंसंसं././././I.T.A No.258/Asr/2019 िनधा"रणवष"/A.Y.:2014-15 िनधा"रणवष" िनधा"रणवष" िनधा"रणवष" Shri Satish Kumar S/O Hans Raj, Vs. Principal Commissioner Of B-12, Mch-366/13, Billa Income-Tax-1, Jalandhar House, New Jagatpura, Hoshiarpur Pan: Aawpk 0932 D अपीलाथ" Appellant अपीलाथ" ""यथ"/Respondent ""यथ" अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" ""यथ" ""यथ"

1 to 6 of appeal states that Pr.CIT has erred in passing order under section 263 of the Act, which is illegal and without jurisdiction and Pr.CIT has grossly erred in holding the assessment order passed under section 143 (3) as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue, even though the AO has carried out necessary

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

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

1 and 2 above, who were neither produced by the assessee nor attended in response to the summons issued to them by the Assessing Officer (AO) u/s. 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

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

1) of the Act, and non-compliance, the AO completed assessment u/s 144 of the Act on 27.12.2019, with an addition 3 Raj Dev v. ITO u/s 68 of the Act of Rs. 28,50,000/- as unexplained money and assessed the total income of the assessee at Rs. 28,50,000/- under section 68 r.w.s. 115BBE

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

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

1 of the revenue is allowed. Ground No. 2 7. During the assessment the ld. AO disallowed 10% of unverifiable expenses amount of Rs.66,20,474/- which is worked out to Rs.6,62,048/-. In argument the ld. DR placed that the ld. CIT(A) has reduced the disallowance from 10% to 8% related to unverifiable expenses. So, the addition

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

1 of the revenue is allowed. Ground No. 2 7. During the assessment the ld. AO disallowed 10% of unverifiable expenses amount of Rs.66,20,474/- which is worked out to Rs.6,62,048/-. In argument the ld. DR placed that the ld. CIT(A) has reduced the disallowance from 10% to 8% related to unverifiable expenses. So, the addition

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

1. The assessee was asked to submit documentary evidence w.r.t. large cash receipts before the starting of demonetization period. The assessee was only able to furnish 2nd copy of the receipt issued to customers which does not prove the genuineness of the transactions. The assessee also furnished copies of identity proofs of S persons from whom the assessee firm

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

131 dated 01.11.2012 and, again, vide show cause dated 12.02.2013, which was also accompanied by summons of even date. The AO’s finding as to the applicability of s. 145(3), which reads as under, and, thus, of s. 144, however, is not based only on the non-production of the books of account, indeed essential for him to complete

SHRI RAJIV KUMAR KHANNA ,ABOHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-II, BATHINDA

Accordingly, the ground no. 2 of the appellant assessee stands dismissed as not pressed

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

131(1 )(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, at the back of the Appellant without the opportunity of cross examination and ignoring the affidavits filed during assessment as well as appellate proceedings. 8. That all the comments passed by the CIT(Appeals), while partly allowing the appeal, confirming the above additions, are based on assumptions, presumptions, surmises & conjectures only

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

1.e. Rs. 2,45,14,364/- from M/s Universal Foods Corporation, Fazilka and Rs 2,43,78,214/- from M/s Evergreen Sales Corporation, Fazilka) 6.10 Accordingly, addition of Rs. 5,86,710/- (i.e. 1.2% of Rs. 4,88,92,578) is upheld out of the total addition of Rs.6,43,54,912/-.” 6. Regarding the issue of reopening

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

section 37(1) (for any revenue expenditure generally), etc. The matter stands dealt with and explained at considerable length by the Tribunal per its special bench decision in ITO v. Kenaram Saha and Subhash Saha [2009] 116 ITD 1 (Kol)(SB); and more recently in Gurdas Garg v. Asst. CIT (in ITA No. 456/Asr/2013, dated 28/2/2014) (also referred

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

1. That the order of the CIT (A) is against the facts on record and provisions of law thus the same is arbitrary, bad in the eyes of law and is liable to be struck down. 2. That the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in upholding an addition of Rs.15lacs in the returned income made by the A.O by ignoring

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

1. That the Id CIT(A) misdirected herself in law and facts, in upholding the assumption of jurisdiction by the ITO by invoking the provisions of section 147/148. 2. That when the material relied upon to record such reasons had become nonest by virtue of Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court order on the core issue

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

1. That the Id CIT(A) misdirected herself in law and facts, in upholding the assumption of jurisdiction by the ITO by invoking the provisions of section 147/148. 2. That when the material relied upon to record such reasons had become nonest by virtue of Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court order on the core issue

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

1. That the Id CIT(A) misdirected herself in law and facts, in upholding the assumption of jurisdiction by the ITO by invoking the provisions of section 147/148. 2. That when the material relied upon to record such reasons had become nonest by virtue of Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court order on the core issue