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

17 Assessment Year: 2017-18 sales, it could only be concluded that there was growth in asses see's business and impugned addition was to be deleted.” v. Jet Freight Logistics Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax Appeal (NFAC) [2023] 146 taxmann.com 349 (Mumbai - Trib.) “I. Section 68

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

section 263 of the. I.T. Act, 1961. The assessment order is set aside to this extent, i.e., to the extent of the issues discussed above, to the file of the assessing officer to pass a fresh order after making necessary enquiries/investigations in the light of the discussions made above and after giving due opportunity of being heard

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

17. The Next issue is regarding appellant’s objection to confirming the actions of the AO of additions made u/s 68 of the Act on the basis of unexplained credits found in the books of accounts by ignoring the jurisdictional ITAT Bench Judgment in the case of Sh. Sanjeev Kumar v/s ITO ITA No. 445-449/Asr/2015

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

17 Sant Baba Bhag Singh M. C. Society v. Dy. CIT Dera to the assessee as not genuine. Further, even otherwise, this does not in any manner preclude the Revenue to tax the donor for donations out of undisclosed sources, i.e., unproved capacity, u/s. 69A, or even the donee for unexplained credit u/s. 68. As held in L. Hazari

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 147 r.w.s 144 of the Act, with an addition of Rs. 7,37,948/- by taking into consideration peak amount date 24.12.2017 on account of cash deposited in ICICI bank. Aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) uphold the order of assessment. Being dissatisfied the assessee filed an appeal before

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

17 Asstt. CIT v. Mohd. Ashraf Sheikh considered view, Assessing Officer was justified in passing assessment order making additions under section 68

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

section 68 cannot be invoked. Further hon’ble Gujarat high court in the case of PCIT Vs. Ojas Tarmake Pvt. Ltd. (supra) has held that where major portion of the credit has been repaid during the year and the AO has accepted the debit entries as genuine, the Hon'ble court on the said facts ultimately affirmed the decision

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

section 68 cannot be invoked. Further hon’ble Gujarat high court in the case of PCIT Vs. Ojas Tarmake Pvt. Ltd. (supra) has held that where major portion of the credit has been repaid during the year and the AO has accepted the debit entries as genuine, the Hon'ble court on the said facts ultimately affirmed the decision

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

17. From the above, it evident that after rejection books of account by applying section 145(3) of the Act, the AO has estimated the income of te assessee as above. It is settled law that once books are rejected and income assessed by the AO on estimate basis, the provisions of section 68

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

17. From the above, it evident that after rejection books of account by applying section 145(3) of the Act, the AO has estimated the income of te assessee as above. It is settled law that once books are rejected and income assessed by the AO on estimate basis, the provisions of section 68

SHRI JASHANDEEP SINGH SIDHU,BATHINDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(3), BATHINDA

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

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

17,500/- without appreciating that section 68 of the Act cannot apply to bank statement etc. which makes the addition

SHRI JASHANDEEP SINGH SIDHU,BATHINDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- 1 (3), BATHINDA

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

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

17,500/- without appreciating that section 68 of the Act cannot apply to bank statement etc. which makes the addition

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. Therefore, the assessee cannot escape from the burden cast upon him and unfortunately in these cases 18 I.T.A. Nos. 346 & 347/Asr/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 the burden is heavy as the facts establish that the shares which were traded by the assessees had phenomenal and fanciful rise in price in a short

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. Therefore, the assessee cannot escape from the burden cast upon him and unfortunately in these cases 18 I.T.A. Nos. 346 & 347/Asr/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 the burden is heavy as the facts establish that the shares which were traded by the assessees had phenomenal and fanciful rise in price in a short

SHRI MANJIT SINGH S/O SHRI.GURDEV SINGH KHERA,MOGA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER -II, MOGA

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

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

17,200/- by applying the provisions of Section 68 of the Act. 3. That the Learned Commissioner of Income

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

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

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

section 115BBE of the Act. 10. In the light of the discussions made in the foregoing paras, we are of the considered view, the sole ground raised by the assessee is covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the coordinate Bench in the case of Shri Bhuwan Goyal (supra) discussed above. Since the findings

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