SHRI VARINDER KUMAR,BATALA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2, BATALA

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

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

198 days is condoned. 3. The assessee has taken the following grounds: “1. That the penalty order passed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Batala thereby levying penalty of Rs.5,09,784/- u/s 271 (1 )(c) as well as the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Amritsar, thereby confirming the penalty order passed

SH. VARINDER KUMAR SOUL,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3(2), JALANDHAR

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 451(Asr)/2017 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Pan: Cvips 5218R

68, and its said observations were in the context of the meaning of the expression 'the assessee offers no explanation’ (or one that is not satisfactory in the opinion of the Assessing Officer), which finds mention in section 69/69A as well. Further still, though there is no rebuttal by the assessee, and even as the same represents a part

M/S G G OILS & FATS PVT.LTD ,BATHINDA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BATHINDA

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi. T. A. No. 508/Asr/2017 Assessment Year: 2014-15

Section 2(22)(e), it was argued therein, should be read down inasmuch as it carried an irrebuttable presumption of a loan or advance to a substantial shareholder being a distribution of profit and, thus, dividend thereto, by definition, by a company (in which public is not substantially interested). It worked unfairly on those repaying the loan as against

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, SRINAGAR vs. SH. SUHAIL AHMED BHAT, PROP. M/S SHIFA TRADERS, RANGPARISTAN, SRINAGAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue Department stands dismissed

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N.K.Choudhryita No.136(Asr)/2015 Assessment Year:2007-08

198 ITR 197 (SC): c. ITO vs. Sarabhai M. Lakhani [2000] 243 ITR 01 (SC): d. Raymond Woolen Mills Ltd. Vs. ITO [1999] 236 ITR 34 (SC): 2. Whether the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Jammu was right in deleting the addition u/s 68 of the I.T. Act, 1961 on account of unexplained cash deposits made

SHRIMATI RAVINDER BAWA,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(3), JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Laliet Kumar & Dr. M. L. Meena

section 142(1) of the Act on 8.8.2018 and 143(2) of the Act were received. 6. During assessment proceedings, information was filed vide letters dated 05.10.2018, 09.10.2018, 30.11.2018. the information was filled by the assessee credit entry of same date in the account of the assessee includes copy of loan account showing the entry of loan amount

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