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 6. In the present case, the appellant has deposited cash amounting to Rs.16,70,500/- in his bank account maintained with State Bank of India in FY 2011-12 relevant to AY 2012-13 which remained unexplained to the satishfaction of the AO. Accordingly, the AO initiated proceedings u/s 147 of the act after obtaining the approval

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

3. We have heard the parties, and perused the material on record. 3.1 Ground 1 of the appeal, challenging the validity of the reassessment proceedings, was not pressed during hearing, with the ld. AR making an endorsement to that effect on the appeal memo. 3.2 We, next, consider the merits of the impugned addition, since sustained. Even as observed

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

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

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

3 Maninder Singh Cheema v. Asstt. CIT 6. Dalwinder Singh 1,50,000/- Cash 7. Hoshiar Singh 1,00,000/- Cash 8. Surinder Bansal 1,50,000/- Cash Total Rs.10,00,000/- Affidavits from six of them were filed, i.e., other than the persons listed at serial nos. 1 and 2 above, who were neither produced by the assessee

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

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

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

3,00,000/- 07.08.2013 40,000/- 14.08.2013 2,00,000/- The assessee had clearly failed to prove the genuineness of the credit. Accordingly, relying on the decisions in Namdev Arora v. CIT [2016] 389 ITR 434 (P&H) (in ITA No. 159 of 2016, dated 20.07.2016); Kamal Motors v. CIT [2003] 131 Taxman 155 (Raj); and C. Kant

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

3 of the revenue is dismissed. Ground No. 4 12. The ld. DR agitated the issue related to deleting the addition amount of Rs.2.10 crore on account of share application money received from its director. The ld. DR invited our attention in the appeal order page no. 39, the relevant para is extracted as below: “The provision of section

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

3 of the revenue is dismissed. Ground No. 4 12. The ld. DR agitated the issue related to deleting the addition amount of Rs.2.10 crore on account of share application money received from its director. The ld. DR invited our attention in the appeal order page no. 39, the relevant para is extracted as below: “The provision of section

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

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

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

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

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

3 and 4 of the appellant are rejected. Adjudication on merits of the case: In ground nos. 5 to 15, the quantum addition is challenged by spreading in multiple grounds with consequential interest to addition u/s 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act, and hence adjudicated simultaneously in the following paras. 18. The Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the addition

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

3,98,40,548/-) because the AO has inadvertently missed out the confirmed ledger A/c. Thereafter, the ld. CIT(A) arrived at a conclusion, that there is no material on record to prove that the cash paid by the assessee through bank channel has been received back by the assessee. He also 6 I.T.A. No. 588/Asr/2024 & Ors Vohra Solvex

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"

3,62,608 of computer expenses and Rs.3,68,192 on weig bridge expenses. As these expenses were paid to particular entity which are in the nature of Works contract and liable to TDS under section 194C of the Act. However, the perusal of records suggest that there is nothing on record that TDS was deducted on these payments

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

3. That the Id.CIT(A) erred in summarily rejecting the assessee’s claim that the impugned transactions were assessable in HUF capacity and not in individual case of assessee. 4. That the alleged unexplained credits in bank accounts, sustained by Id.CIT(A) to the extent of Rs.17,23,550/- (18,70,500-1,46,950) ignoringassessees’ explanation in a most

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

3. That the Id.CIT(A) erred in summarily rejecting the assessee’s claim that the impugned transactions were assessable in HUF capacity and not in individual case of assessee. 4. That the alleged unexplained credits in bank accounts, sustained by Id.CIT(A) to the extent of Rs.17,23,550/- (18,70,500-1,46,950) ignoringassessees’ explanation in a most