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

Section 68 of the Act and without considering the facts that no books of accounts have been maintained by the assessee. 7. That the appellant craves the leave to add, modify, amend or delete any of the grounds of appeal at the time of hearing and all the above grounds are without prejudice to each other.” The facts

SHRIMATI JATINDER KAUR ( ALIAS AMRITA),JALANDHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JALANDHAR

In the result all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

68 of proving the cash credit were satisfied by the assessee the addition should have been deleted rather than upholding the same u/s 56(1)(vii) of the Act. 4 That even otherwise on facts too, the CIT(A) has erred in holding that the Gift to the daughter by his father during the year which came from the Bank

SHRIMATI JATINDER KAUR (ALIAS AMRITA),JALANDHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JALANDHAR

In the result all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

68 of proving the cash credit were satisfied by the assessee the addition should have been deleted rather than upholding the same u/s 56(1)(vii) of the Act. 4 That even otherwise on facts too, the CIT(A) has erred in holding that the Gift to the daughter by his father during the year which came from the Bank

SHRIMATI JATINDER KAUR(ALIAS AMRITA),JALANDHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JALANDHAR

In the result all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

68 of proving the cash credit were satisfied by the assessee the addition should have been deleted rather than upholding the same u/s 56(1)(vii) of the Act. 4 That even otherwise on facts too, the CIT(A) has erred in holding that the Gift to the daughter by his father during the year which came from the Bank

SHRIMATI MEERA AGGARWAL,JALANDHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE- 2, JALANDHAR

Bench: Shri L. P. Sahu & Shri Ravish Sood

section 292C of the Act under which presumption is raised which is rebuttable and the assessee has duly rebutted by submitting affidavit of her father which has been accepted by the department. 12. That the assessee reserves the right to amend, alter or raise an additional grounds of appeal before the disposal of this appeal.” Search and seizure proceedings

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

132 of the Act. Sub-section (4) thereof enables the authorities not only to rely upon the statement in the concerned proceedings but also in other proceedings that are pending, by the time the statement was recorded. 10. If the statement is not retracted, the same can constitute the sole basis for the authorities to pass an order

POONAM MARWAHA,AMRITSAR vs. ACIT DCIT CEN CIR, AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee is allowed

68,\nhowever, Commissioner exercising his\nrevisionary power under section 263\nset aside assessment orders directing\nAssessing Officer to make fresh\nassessment after conducting detailed\nenquiry and upon satisfying on\ngenuneness of transaction - Whether\norder of Commissioner was not based\non irrelevant considerations and\nfurther in present circumstances, he\nwas not obliged to positively indicate\ndeficiencies in assessment order

SHRI JASBIR SINGH ,AMRITSAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, AMRITSAR

In the result, appeal of the assesseeITA No

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No. 133/Asr/2022 Assessment Year: 2019-20

section 68 of the I.T.Act. [ Addition: Rs.27,20,300/-]” I.T.A. No. 133/Asr/2022 8 Assessment Year: 2019-20 5.2 The ld. AR further placed a detailed statement related to denial of reasonable opportunity during assessment proceeding related to issuance of the notice by the ld. AO. The statement is duly extracted as below: “The AO has wrongly observed that

ASSIATANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX PHAGWARA CIRCLE, PHAGWARA vs. SHRI HARMESH KUMAR, PHILLAUR

In the result, these appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

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

132(4) of the Act there is no provision to examine a person on oath. But it does not mean that a statement under Section 133A of the Act can be retracted at the whim and fancy of the assessee. In the light of the aforesaid, the assertions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PHAGWARA CIRCLE, PHAGWARA vs. SHRI CHUNI LAL, PHILLAUR

In the result, these appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

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

132(4) of the Act there is no provision to examine a person on oath. But it does not mean that a statement under Section 133A of the Act can be retracted at the whim and fancy of the assessee. In the light of the aforesaid, the assertions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted

SHRI RAJESH TIWARI,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, JALANDHAR

In the result, the ground nos

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

68 of the Act and undisclosed interest amount of Rs.601/- was added back with the total income of the assessee. Aggrieved assessee challenged the jurisdiction of assessment u/s I.T.A. No. 84/Asr/2022 4 Assessment Year: 2012-13 153C/143(3) framed by the ld. AO and the merit before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) upheld the order

M/S GURFATEH FILMS,MOHALI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-II, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Hon’Ble & Sh. Ravish Soodita No.50/Asr./2018 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 M/S Gurfateh Films, 4140 Vs Dcit, Sector 68, Mohali Central Circle-Ii, Jalandhar (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aakfg9328D

68, Mohali Central Circle-II, Jalandhar (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAKFG9328D ITA No.51/Asr./2018 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Gurfateh Films & Sippy Vs DCIT, Grewal Production Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-II, 1013, Sector 67, Mohali Jalandhar (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAECG8982G Assessee by : Sh. Jatinder Sharma, CA Revenue by : Smt. Parvinder Kaur, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 16.01.2019 Date of Pronouncement

SHRIMATI NANDINI SHARMA ,AMRITSAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, AMRITSAR

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

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

68,459/- 7,61,200/- 6 Nandini Sharma v. ACIT/DCIT M/s PRABHAT TRADERS Inventory Stock as inventorized by the PB Page no. department 112 1. 13,87,700 13. That during statement recorded u/s 131, it was duly clarified by the assessee that the stock related to cloth items pertains to M/s Prabhat Traders Prop. Santosh Sharma, and was also

SHRI GAURAV NARULA ,AHMEDABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeal of the

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

132 of the Act and was carried upon at the business and residential premises of the assessee and its group of companies on 05.12.2013. The assessee filed the Income Tax Return against the notice u/s 153A with a total income amount of Rs. 1,68,240/- return filed on 31.03.2015. The assessment was completed u/s 144 r.w.s. 143(3)/153A

SHRI GAURAV NARULA ,FEROZPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE , AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeal of the

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

132 of the Act and was carried upon at the business and residential premises of the assessee and its group of companies on 05.12.2013. The assessee filed the Income Tax Return against the notice u/s 153A with a total income amount of Rs. 1,68,240/- return filed on 31.03.2015. The assessment was completed u/s 144 r.w.s. 143(3)/153A

SHRI ANKUSH NARULA,AMRITSAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE, AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeal of the

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

132 of the Act and was carried upon at the business and residential premises of the assessee and its group of companies on 05.12.2013. The assessee filed the Income Tax Return against the notice u/s 153A with a total income amount of Rs. 1,68,240/- return filed on 31.03.2015. The assessment was completed u/s 144 r.w.s. 143(3)/153A

DCIT, CIRCLE-1, BATHINDA vs. DMR BUILDERS PVT LTD, BATHINDA

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed being devoid of merits

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Hybrid Hearing) I.T.A. Nos. 292 & 293/Asr/2024 Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18

68, of the Act for the assessment year 2016-17. 5. In view of the above facts, I have reasons to believe that amounts of Rs. 5,71,37,870/-, which was chargeable to tax in the case of the assessee for the assessment year 2016-17 has escaped assessment within the meaning of section

DCIT, CIRCLE-1, BATHINDA vs. DMR BUILDERS PVT LTD, BATHINDA

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed being devoid of merits

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Hybrid Hearing) I.T.A. Nos. 292 & 293/Asr/2024 Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18

68, of the Act for the assessment year 2016-17. 5. In view of the above facts, I have reasons to believe that amounts of Rs. 5,71,37,870/-, which was chargeable to tax in the case of the assessee for the assessment year 2016-17 has escaped assessment within the meaning of section