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

143(3) making addition of Rs 2,74,000,00/- out of total cash deposited during demonetization period at Rs 4,09,50,000/-.The addition has been made by the AO alleging that the appellant had inflated the sales to cover unaccounted money and assessed the total income at Rs. 28217200/-. That the Ld. AO has rejected the books

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

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

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

section 40A(3). All the provisions were duly complied with. As such, no disallowance was called for and similarly the worthy CIT(A) was also not justified in confirming the same without appreciating the facts of the case. Alternatively, the disallowance made is very high & excessive. 8. Further, the A.O has grossly erred in not allowing the deduction claimed

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

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

section 40A(3). All the provisions were duly complied with. As such, no disallowance was called for and similarly the worthy CIT(A) was also not justified in confirming the same without appreciating the facts of the case. Alternatively, the disallowance made is very high & excessive. 8. Further, the A.O has grossly erred in not allowing the deduction claimed

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

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

section 40A(3). All the provisions were duly complied with. As such, no disallowance was called for and similarly the worthy CIT(A) was also not justified in confirming the same without appreciating the facts of the case. Alternatively, the disallowance made is very high & excessive. 8. Further, the A.O has grossly erred in not allowing the deduction claimed

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

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

section 40A(3). All the provisions were duly complied with. As such, no disallowance was called for and similarly the worthy CIT(A) was also not justified in confirming the same without appreciating the facts of the case. Alternatively, the disallowance made is very high & excessive. 8. Further, the A.O has grossly erred in not allowing the deduction claimed

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

143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ hereinafter) dated 25.11.2016 for Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2014-15. 2. The assessee-society, registered u/s. 12AA of the Act, is engaged in charitable activity by way of running various educational and medical institutions, the names of seven of which are listed at pg. 15 of the assessment order. Its’ accounts

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

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

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

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

ii) that, as no notice which is mandatorily required to be issued under Sec. 153A of the Act was issued in the case of the assesee, therefore the assessment framed under Sec. 153A/143(3), dated 19.12.2018 could not be sustained and was liable to be vacated. We have given a thoughtful consideration to the aforesaid claim of the assesee

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

68-75. 9.2 That the assessee also submitted PAN number along with details of amount paid and TDS deducted in respect of amount paid to unsecured loan. The copy of TDS returns as submitted before the AO is placed at page no 92 of paper book. That it is pertinent to mention here that all 19 Narinder and Company

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

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

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

68 sans valid and proper books of account of assessee is invalid - Held, yes [Paras 6.2, 6.4 and 8][ln favour of assessee] ii. Section 143 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Assessment (Cross examination) - Assessment year 2015-16 - Whether where Page 16 of 17 revenue strongly relies on statements of certain persons to implicate an assessee, principles

HIMALYA SPINNING MILLS,AMRITSAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- 2 (1), AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

ii) cash deposited into bank by the assessee during demonetization period (from 09.11.2016 to 4 Himalaya Spinning Mills v. ITO 31.12.2016) increased by 389.82% in the F.Y 2016-17 as compared to the same period in F.Y 2015-16. A.O further observed that the total cash sales during the F.Y 2015-16 was Rs.5,60,204/- and cash sales during

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

PANKAJ JINDAL CONTRACTOR,MANSA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-I, BATHINDA, BATHINDA

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Physical Hearing) I.T.A. No. 695/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S Pankaj Jindal Contractor, Vs. Dcit-Circle-1, Near Vidya Bharti School, Bathinda. Mansa. [Pan:-Aajfp8008L] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Sudhir Sehgal, Adv. Respondent By Sh. Charan Dass, Sr. Dr

68 on a/c of difference in ledger balance with one Ramesh Kumar & Co). 4. The matter carried in first appeal has been dismissed by the ld. CIT(A) by upholding both the additions on merits by observing as follows: “In view of the above facts, it is pertinent to note that the assessee has made cash payments on various dates

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JAMMU vs. M/S FILL INDUSTRIES,, SRINAGAR

In the result appeal of the assessee ground no 4 to 4

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

ii) 52 taxmann.com 16 (Del) Asst. CIT vs. Richa Industries Ltd. Section 43(1), read with section 32, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Actual cost (Subsidy) - Assessment year 2008-09 - Whether Explanation 10 to section 43(1), would suggest that actual receipt of subsidy was a condition precedent forinvoking such provisions - Held, yes - Whether where amount

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JAMMU vs. M/S FIL INDUSTRIES,, SRINAGAR

In the result appeal of the assessee ground no 4 to 4

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

ii) 52 taxmann.com 16 (Del) Asst. CIT vs. Richa Industries Ltd. Section 43(1), read with section 32, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Actual cost (Subsidy) - Assessment year 2008-09 - Whether Explanation 10 to section 43(1), would suggest that actual receipt of subsidy was a condition precedent forinvoking such provisions - Held, yes - Whether where amount