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

15] NeminathMuttin [In favour of assessee] 2. [2014] 42 Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Cash credits

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

68-74). AELPG5810P I.T.A. No.117/Asr/2022 15 Assessment Year: 2017-18 2. The PCIT was also apprised with the issue that the investment made by the partner has duly been verified by the respective assessing officer vide questionnaire dated 09.12.2019 for AY 2017-18 [Refer Page no. 75-77]. The relevant question raised by the assessing officer in the questionnaire (Relevant

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

15 Sant Baba Bhag Singh M. C. Society v. Dy. CIT assessee’s books), while the identity of the donor, it’s ‘source’; the two requirements mandated for being satisfactorily explained by section 68

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

section 68 of the Act. If he could not have done so in respect of the assessment order, he cannot do so in respect of the orders in appeal by the CIT (A) or by the Tribunal. 15

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

section 68 was inapplicable for assessment of such gift in assessee’s hands - Held, yes 8. Assessee’s Ground No. 4 The ld. Counsel placed the argument related to Ground No. 4 Ground That CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 737948/- on No 4 account of peak cash deposited in ICICI Bank Account

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, JAMMU vs. M/S MOHD ASRAF SHEIKH, JAMMU

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed

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

section 68 for establishing credibility and identity of shareholders. However, we found that the Ld. CIT(A) did not even either advert to cause field enquiry under co-terminus power equal to the AO or else called for a remand report from the AO in rebuttal which revealed that assessee failed to discharge primary onus to establish identity

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

15 taxmann.com 70 (Punjab & Haryana) dated 31.03.2011. “Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Cash credits - Assessment year

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

15 taxmann.com 70 (Punjab & Haryana) dated 31.03.2011. “Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Cash credits - Assessment year

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

68 of the Act. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the authorities below ought to have disproved the claim of the assesse by way of rebutting its contention with support of corroborative documentary evidences on record after granting an adequate opportunity of being heard. 11. The Hon’ble Supreme Court

M/S SHANKAR RICE & GENERAL MILLS ,MOGA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE, MOGA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

68 cannot be assessed as income from other sources under section 56. 15. Thus what is taxed under Chapter

SHRI FAROOQ AHMAD AHANGAR,SRINAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-3(1), SRINAGAR

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

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

15. The Appellant stated in the written submission that the addition is unjustified and against the law. Further the entire addition of Rs 572590.00 u/s 68 of the Act, is based on presumptions by ignoring the facts and circumstances of the case. The Ld. AO made an addition of Rs 572590.00 on account of wages payable u/s 68

SHRI FAROOQ AHMAD AHANGAR,SRINAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFICER, WARD-3(1, SRINAGAR

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

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

15. The Appellant stated in the written submission that the addition is unjustified and against the law. Further the entire addition of Rs 572590.00 u/s 68 of the Act, is based on presumptions by ignoring the facts and circumstances of the case. The Ld. AO made an addition of Rs 572590.00 on account of wages payable u/s 68

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 - Whether Tribunal had rightly concluded that there was no merit in appeal against Commissioner (Appeals) order - Held, yes [Para 4] [In favour of assessee]” 15

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 - Whether Tribunal had rightly concluded that there was no merit in appeal against Commissioner (Appeals) order - Held, yes [Para 4] [In favour of assessee]” 15

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

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

Section 68 of the Act. Therefore, on this count itself the impugned addition Rs.2,35,000/- deserves to be deleted. We thus ‘set aside’ the order of the CIT(A) and delete the addition of Rs.2,35,000/- sustained by him under Sec.68 of the Act. As we have quashed the addition of Rs. 2,35,000/- that

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

68 makes addition , which is in the books of accounts,, and appellate cannot prove source of credit, while as section 69A makes additions which is out of books of accounts. Therefore this judgment is not applicable in the instant case. Regarding the issue of taking support from M/s Me Dowell & Co. Ltd. The said judgment has no relevance with

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

section 68 stands rightly invoked by the AO in the facts and circumstances the case. The impugned order is accordingly set aside on this ground, and the impugned addition upheld. 5. The second ground is in respect of addition of Rs. 15

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. Copy of the decision is enclosed at page no. 91. The view of the Delhi High Court in this case has been endorsed by the Supreme Court as the SLP of the revenue was dismissed and stands reported at 380 ITR 64 (Statute). Copy of the order is enclosed at page no. 92. In view of the fact that

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. Copy of the decision is enclosed at page no. 91. The view of the Delhi High Court in this case has been endorsed by the Supreme Court as the SLP of the revenue was dismissed and stands reported at 380 ITR 64 (Statute). Copy of the order is enclosed at page no. 92. In view of the fact that