SHRI SATBIR SINGH BHULLAR,AMRITSAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- 5 (4), AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

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

1 (2), provisions of section 68 would apply in circumstances mentioned therein - Held, yes - Assessing Officer Thane examined bank Pass Book of assessee and treated cash [2016] 73 taxmann.com 68 deposits in bank account as unexplained cash credit (Mumbai - within meaning of section 68 and added same in Trib.) income of assessee - Whether since assessee was not maintaining

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

section 68. 2. That the order passed by the AO is bad in the eyes of law as no notice u/s 148 was ever served on the assessee and similarly no notice u/s 142(1

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"

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 inspite of the facts to the AO Dr. Harprit Singh v. DCIT-CC-II, Jalandhar/I.T.A. No.195/ASR/2018/A.Y.:11-12 Page 2 of 11 has framed assessment by applying different possibilities and there

SHRI MANMOHAN SINGH KAPUR,HOSHIARPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, JALANDHAR

In the result, appeal of the assessees in ITA Nos

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

68 of the Act had not been discharged by her. 4. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, Learned Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Jalandhar has grossly erred in law in holding that income declared by the assessee was to be taxed u/s 115BBE of the Act. 5. That the order of the Learned Pr. Commissioner

SMT HARNEET KAUR JUNEJA,JALANDHAR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1, JALANDHAR

In the result, appeal of the assessees in ITA Nos

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

68 of the Act had not been discharged by her. 4. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, Learned Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Jalandhar has grossly erred in law in holding that income declared by the assessee was to be taxed u/s 115BBE of the Act. 5. That the order of the Learned Pr. Commissioner

SHRI SUKHJIT SINGH,HOSHIARPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, JALANDHAR

In the result, appeal of the assessees in ITA Nos

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

68 of the Act had not been discharged by her. 4. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, Learned Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Jalandhar has grossly erred in law in holding that income declared by the assessee was to be taxed u/s 115BBE of the Act. 5. That the order of the Learned Pr. Commissioner

SHRIMATI NEETIMA GOYAL,FEROZPUR CANTT. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,3(2), FEROZPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed on legal ground

Bench: Shri L.P. Sahu, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.184/Asr/2018 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2011-2012) Neetima Goyal, Vs. Ito, Ward-3(2), Ferozepur Prop. Raghav Sales, G.T.Road, Ferozepur Cantt., Pin-152001 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Panno. : Aicpg 3586 H (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri I.P.Bansal, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Charan Dass, Dr

section 147 and also on the ground that the sanction granted by the JCIT is not in accordance of mandate of law. For this purpose, reliance is placed on the decision in the case of Smt. Prabha Rani Agarwal V. ITO. Copy at pages 1-7 of compendium. 5 6. From the reasons recorded it can be seen that

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

Bench: Sh. Vikram Singh Yadav & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

1 of brief synopsis. 2. [2015] 60 taxmann.com (Kolkata - Trib.) IN THE ITAT KOLKATA BENCH 'B' Subhlakshmi Vanijya (P.) Ltd. Commissioner Income-tax-I, Kolkata V. of 60 Section 68, read with section 263, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Cash credit (Share capital) Assessment years 2008-09 to 2010-11 - Assessee filed return offering meagre income

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

68 ITR 573 (SC); CIT v. Sutlej Cotton Mills Supply Agency Ltd. [1975] 100 ITR 706 (SC). The reference by the ld. Departmental Representative (DR), Sh. Charan Dass, to decisions in Karanpura Development Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1962] 44 ITR 362 (SC) and S.G. Mercantile Corporation (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [1972] 83 ITR 700 (SC) in this regard is also

SH. ARASHPREET SINGH S/O LATE SH. GURMAIL SINGH,SHRI MUKATSAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-II, BATHINDA

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

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

148 was never served in accordance with the provisions of section 282 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The proceedings u/s 147/148 are void ab-initio because the reasons to believe recorded by the AO are infact reasons to suspect. That no satisfaction was recorded by the Principle CIT which was mandatory under the provisions of Section

SH. ARSPREET SINGH . S/O. LATE. SH. GURMAIL SINGH ,MUKTSAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE .II, BATHINDA

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

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

148 was never served in accordance with the provisions of section 282 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The proceedings u/s 147/148 are void ab-initio because the reasons to believe recorded by the AO are infact reasons to suspect. That no satisfaction was recorded by the Principle CIT which was mandatory under the provisions of Section

LATE. SH. GURMAIL. SINGH. S/O. SH. LAL SINGH,SRI MUKATSAR vs. DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -II, BATHINDA

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

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

148 was never served in accordance with the provisions of section 282 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The proceedings u/s 147/148 are void ab-initio because the reasons to believe recorded by the AO are infact reasons to suspect. That no satisfaction was recorded by the Principle CIT which was mandatory under the provisions of Section

LATE. SH. GUMAIL SINGH . S/O. SH. LAL SINGH,MUKTSAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -II, BATHINDA

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

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

148 was never served in accordance with the provisions of section 282 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The proceedings u/s 147/148 are void ab-initio because the reasons to believe recorded by the AO are infact reasons to suspect. That no satisfaction was recorded by the Principle CIT which was mandatory under the provisions of Section

SH. ARASHPREET SINGH S/O. LATE SH. GURMAIL SINGH,MUKTSAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CERCLE- II, BATHINDA

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

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

148 was never served in accordance with the provisions of section 282 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The proceedings u/s 147/148 are void ab-initio because the reasons to believe recorded by the AO are infact reasons to suspect. That no satisfaction was recorded by the Principle CIT which was mandatory under the provisions of Section

LATE. SH. GURMAIL. SINGH S/O. SH. LAL SINGH,SHRI MUKAT SAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF 9INCOME TAX. CIRCLE -II, BATHINDA

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

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

148 was never served in accordance with the provisions of section 282 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The proceedings u/s 147/148 are void ab-initio because the reasons to believe recorded by the AO are infact reasons to suspect. That no satisfaction was recorded by the Principle CIT which was mandatory under the provisions of Section

LATE. SH. GURMAIL SINGH S/O. SH. LAL SINGH,SRI MUKATSAR vs. DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -II, BATHINDA

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

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

148 was never served in accordance with the provisions of section 282 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The proceedings u/s 147/148 are void ab-initio because the reasons to believe recorded by the AO are infact reasons to suspect. That no satisfaction was recorded by the Principle CIT which was mandatory under the provisions of Section

SH. ARASHPREET SINGH. S/O.LATE.SH. GURMAIL SINGH,MUKTSAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX .CIRCLE-II, BATHINDA

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

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

148 was never served in accordance with the provisions of section 282 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The proceedings u/s 147/148 are void ab-initio because the reasons to believe recorded by the AO are infact reasons to suspect. That no satisfaction was recorded by the Principle CIT which was mandatory under the provisions of Section

SH. ARASHPREET SINGH S/O. LATE SH. GURMAIL SINGH,MUKTSAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-II, BATHINDA

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

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

148 was never served in accordance with the provisions of section 282 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The proceedings u/s 147/148 are void ab-initio because the reasons to believe recorded by the AO are infact reasons to suspect. That no satisfaction was recorded by the Principle CIT which was mandatory under the provisions of Section