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

68. 11. That the learned assessing Officer has erred in rejecting the books of accounts u/s145(3), without serving the show cause notice as embedded in Sec 144 read with Sec145(3). I.T.A. No.195/Asr/2022 4 Assessment Year: 2017-18 12. That the appellant craves leave to add, amend any ground of appeal.” 2. Brief facts of the case are that

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

143(3) of the Act and investments made by them including their investment in the assessee firm had been examined in their individual cases by their respective AOs. 4. I have considered the reply of the assessee to the SCN u/s 263 of the Act and the assessment records. (I). The case was selected under CASS for complete scrutiny

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

section in the order while making the addition. 7 That the assessment order passed by the AO to whom the jurisdiction was transferred cannot be sustained in the absence of fresh notice issued u/s 143(2) of the Income Tax Act 1961. 8 That the orders of AO and CIT (A) are against the Law and facts

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

143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ hereinafter) dated 10.03.2015 for Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2012-13. 2. The facts of the case in brief are that the assessee-individual, dealing businesses material (viz., iron/steel, cement, timber, etc.) as well as a partner in a firm running a hotel, entered into an Agreement to purchase 137 Kanals

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

68, section 69, section 69A, section 69B, section 69C or section 69D, at the rate of thirty per cent; and (b) the amount of income-tax with which the assessee would have been chargeable had his total income been reduced by the amount of income referred to in clause (a).". The respective cases

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

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee is allowed

143(1) Subsequently, Principal\nCommissioner invoked revision under section 263 on ground that a land was sold by\nassessee to an entity below value adopted by concerned authority for levy of stamp duty,\nand therefore, there was under-assessment of income to extent of differential amount, and\naccordingly, assessment made was contrary to provisions 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

3) will not render the Assessing Officer powerless to initiate reassessment proceedings even when intimation under section 143(1) had been issued.” 10. In another case of “Raymond Woolen Mills Limited. Vs ITO”, 236 ITR 34 the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed as under: “In this case, we do not have to give a final decision

DR. HARPRIT SINGH ,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, JALANDHAR

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.195/Asr/2018 िनधा"रणवष"/A.Y.:2011-12 िनधा"रणवष" िनधा"रणवष" िनधा"रणवष" Dr. Harprit Singh, C/O M/S. Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Orthonova Hospital, Near Nari Income-Tax, Niketan, Nakoddar Road, Central Circle –Ii, Jalandhar Jalandhar(Pb) (Pb) Pan: Acmps 7237 F अपीलाथ"Appellant अपीलाथ" ""यथ"/Respondent ""यथ" अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" ""यथ" ""यथ"

143 (3)/147 dtd. 13.01.2016 of Income Tax Act,1961 (in short ‘the Act’) by the Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle- II, Jalandhar (in short “the AO”). 2. Grounds 1 to 4 are against the confirmation of addition of Rs.33,71,720 made on account of cash deposits in saving bank account and Rs. 12,528 being interest

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

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

143(2); (b) that the rejection of accounts by the AO u/s. 145(3) of the Act and, consequently, the invocation of section 144 by him, is invalid; and (c) that the disallowance u/s. 80-IB as well as of the indirect expenditure (as debited to the profit and loss account), made at 50% thereof

SH. SATISH KUMAR,JALANDHAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,, JALANDHAR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Ravish Soodita No.105/Asr./2017 (Assessment Years: 2008-09)

Section 68 of the Act. Therefore, on this count itself the impugned addition Rs.10,53,000/- deserves to be deleted.” We are of the considered view that as the bank account of an assessee cannot be held to be the ‘books’ of an assessee maintained for any previous year, thus no addition under Sec. 68

NARINDER AND COMPANY,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(5), JALANDHAR

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

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

143(2) issued by AO Ward 3(5) and the returns of the family members who were also assessed with the same AO ward 3(5). The copy of the notice and return relied upon by the AR is placed at page no. 19-20 and 292 of the paper 7.2 On the other hand the ld. DR mentioned that

SH. PUNEET SEHDEV PROP,JAMMU vs. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, JAMMU

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

143(3), (Assessee) dated 30.12.2011. ITA 579/Asr/2016 A.Y 2009-10 CIT(Appeals),Jammu– Order dated 30/06/2016 Penalty order u/s 271(1)(c),dated (Assessee) 11/03/2014. ITA 547/Asr/2016 A.Y 2009-10 CIT(Appeals),Jammu– Order dated 30/06/2016 Penalty order u/s 271(1)(c), (Revenue) dated 11/03/2014. As the issues involved in the abovementioned appeals are inextricably interlinked or in fact interwoven

SH. PUNEET SEHDEV PROP;,JAMMU vs. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER,, JAMMU

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

143(3), (Assessee) dated 30.12.2011. ITA 579/Asr/2016 A.Y 2009-10 CIT(Appeals),Jammu– Order dated 30/06/2016 Penalty order u/s 271(1)(c),dated (Assessee) 11/03/2014. ITA 547/Asr/2016 A.Y 2009-10 CIT(Appeals),Jammu– Order dated 30/06/2016 Penalty order u/s 271(1)(c), (Revenue) dated 11/03/2014. As the issues involved in the abovementioned appeals are inextricably interlinked or in fact interwoven

PUNEET SAHDEV,JAMMU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAMMU

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

143(3), (Assessee) dated 30.12.2011. ITA 579/Asr/2016 A.Y 2009-10 CIT(Appeals),Jammu– Order dated 30/06/2016 Penalty order u/s 271(1)(c),dated (Assessee) 11/03/2014. ITA 547/Asr/2016 A.Y 2009-10 CIT(Appeals),Jammu– Order dated 30/06/2016 Penalty order u/s 271(1)(c), (Revenue) dated 11/03/2014. As the issues involved in the abovementioned appeals are inextricably interlinked or in fact interwoven

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAMMU vs. SH. PUNEET SEHDEV, PROP., JAMMU

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

143(3), (Assessee) dated 30.12.2011. ITA 579/Asr/2016 A.Y 2009-10 CIT(Appeals),Jammu– Order dated 30/06/2016 Penalty order u/s 271(1)(c),dated (Assessee) 11/03/2014. ITA 547/Asr/2016 A.Y 2009-10 CIT(Appeals),Jammu– Order dated 30/06/2016 Penalty order u/s 271(1)(c), (Revenue) dated 11/03/2014. As the issues involved in the abovementioned appeals are inextricably interlinked or in fact interwoven

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

143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Act with an addition of Rs.4,22,00,000/- u/s 68 in respect of cash credit received from seven different lenders. 4. Aggrieved the order passed by the AO, the assessee filed an appeal before the First appellate authority, and the Worthy CIT(A) has given part relief to the assessee i.e. relief

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

143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Act with an addition of Rs.4,22,00,000/- u/s 68 in respect of cash credit received from seven different lenders. 4. Aggrieved the order passed by the AO, the assessee filed an appeal before the First appellate authority, and the Worthy CIT(A) has given part relief to the assessee i.e. relief

SHRI NASIR AHMED RANGSHU,ANANTNAG vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, SRINAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

143(3). In above regard, it is seen that there is no such compulsion on the AO to reject the books of accounts before applying the provisions of Section 69. It has been held by the Hon’ble High Court of Kolkata in the case of Unit Construction Co. Ltd. vs. Jt. CIT [2003] 260 ITR 189 (Cal.) that