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

47 68. 48Where any sum is found credited in the books49of an assessee maintained for any previous year, and the assessee offers no explanation49 about the nature and source thereof or the explanation offered by him is not, in the opinion of the 50[Assessing] Officer, satisfactory, the sum so credited may49 be charged to income-tax as the income

MESERS G.G CONTINEENTAL TRADES PVT.LTD,BATHINDA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-I, BATHINDA

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

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No.189/Asr/2018 Assessment Years: 2014-15

47 to 51. Thus, on the basis of consistency also, addition is liable to be deleted besides the judgment of Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Suraj Dev Dada and of Kolkata High Court and Other judgments as cited above. For the purpose of consistency, the following judgments are being respectfully reliedwhich are as follows: - I.T.A. Nos.189/Asr/2018&513/Asr/2019

MEASAGE G. G OILS & FATS PRIVATE LIMITED,BATHINDA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE- 1 , BATHINDA

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

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No.189/Asr/2018 Assessment Years: 2014-15

47 to 51. Thus, on the basis of consistency also, addition is liable to be deleted besides the judgment of Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Suraj Dev Dada and of Kolkata High Court and Other judgments as cited above. For the purpose of consistency, the following judgments are being respectfully reliedwhich are as follows: - I.T.A. Nos.189/Asr/2018&513/Asr/2019

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

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

MAX FINANCIAL SERVICE LIMITED ,NAWANSHAHR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is therefore partly allowed

47 A.Y.2015-16 officer has failed to examine the computation of share valuation as discussed above. The order of the assessing officer is thus prejudicial and erroneous.” the Ld.Counsel for the assessee pointed out that the Ld. Pr.CIT has only stated that the revised Valuation Report filed by the assessee needed verification, the valuation of the shares sold needed

SH. SATISH KUMAR,JALANDHAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,, JALANDHAR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Ravish Soodita No.105/Asr./2017 (Assessment Years: 2008-09)

2), Thane (2016) 73 taxmann.com 68 (Mumbai Trib.) wherein it was held as under: - 'I have carefully considered the rival submissions. In the present case the addition has been I made by the income tax authorities by treating the cash deposits in the bank account as an unexplained cash credit within the meaning of section 68

MESERS P.D SEKHSARIA TRADING COMPANY ,BATHINDA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, BATHINDA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the Stay Petition of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Sh. N. S. Saini & Sh. N. K. Choudhryita No. 331/Asr./2018 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 M/S P. D. Sekhsaria Trading Vs Dy. Commissioner Of Income Company Pvt. Ltd., 4242, Tax, Circle-I, Ground Floor, Gurudwara Singh Bathinda, Punjab Sabha Street, Bathinda, Punjab (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcp1720E Sa No. 03/Asr./2019 (In Ita No. 331/Asr./2018: Asstt. Year : 2014-15) M/S P. D. Sekhsaria Trading Vs Dy. Commissioner Of Income Company Pvt. Ltd., 4242, Tax, Circle-I, Ground Floor, Gurudwara Singh Bathinda, Punjab Sabha Street, Bathinda, Punjab (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcp1720E Assessee By : Shri. Salil Kapoor, Adv. & Shri. Sanat Kapoor, Adv. Revenue By : Shri. M. P. Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing :20.02.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.03.2019 Order Per N. S. Saini: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Cit(A), Bathinda Dated 26.03.2018. 2. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case The Addition/Disallowance Of Rs.4,69,47,808/- Made

2 of the Forward Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1952 (74 of 1952) and which fulfils such conditions as may be prescribed and is notified by the Central Government for this purpose:” 56. The contention of the Revenue is that though the provision was inserted w.e.f. assessment year 2014-15 but as the recognized association was notified by the notification dated

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

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

68, however, Commissioner exercising his revisionary power under section 263 set aside assessment orders directing Assessing Officer to make fresh assessment after conducting detailed enquiry and upon satisfying on genuneness of transaction - Whether order of Commissioner was not based on irrelevant considerations and further in present circumstances, he was not obliged to positively indicate deficiencies in assessment order

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, 69, 69A, 69B, 69C or 69D and reflected in the return of income furnished under section 139. Hence, tax on this income was to be charged under section 115BBE even if it had been declared by the assessee in the return of income. Income has been erroneously taxed at lower tax rate in this case causing prejudice

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, 69, 69A, 69B, 69C or 69D and reflected in the return of income furnished under section 139. Hence, tax on this income was to be charged under section 115BBE even if it had been declared by the assessee in the return of income. Income has been erroneously taxed at lower tax rate in this case causing prejudice

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, 69, 69A, 69B, 69C or 69D and reflected in the return of income furnished under section 139. Hence, tax on this income was to be charged under section 115BBE even if it had been declared by the assessee in the return of income. Income has been erroneously taxed at lower tax rate in this case causing prejudice

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

47 G. G. Oils & Fats Pvt. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT Date Particulars Narration Debit Credit Closing Balance 01/04/2013 Opening Balance 27947593.00 Dr 27947593 09/04/2013 HDFC BANK Ch. No. : xxx 15/04/2013 HDFC BANK Ch. No. : xxx 04/05/2013 HDFC BANK Ch. No.: xxx 08/05/2013 HDFC BANK Ch. No.: xxx 13/05/2013 HDFC BANK 0.00 Ch. No.: xxx 23/05/2013 FLC INSURANCE EXP xxx Policy

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

68 of the Act and without considering the facts that no books of accounts have been maintained by the assessee. 7. That the appellant craves the leave to add, modify, amend or delete any of the grounds of appeal at the time of hearing and all the above grounds are without prejudice to each other.” The facts of the case

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

68 of the Act and without considering the facts that no books of accounts have been maintained by the assessee. 7. That the appellant craves the leave to add, modify, amend or delete any of the grounds of appeal at the time of hearing and all the above grounds are without prejudice to each other.” The facts of the case

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

2 to 2.2 of the assessment order). In appeal, the assessee found favour with the ld. CIT(A) on the basis that the assessee had discharged the initial onus on him by furnishing affidavits from the concerned persons as well as producing them before the AO, and who had confirmed having received back their deposits through Sh. Raj Sher Singh

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

2(1) Bhatinda, ITA No. 14/Asr/2015 date of pronouncement 14/12/2015. Held that, 6. In this regard, the facts are not disputed. The question is that when, AO has been held to be wrongly applied the provisions of section 69, whether the addition can be sustained by invoking, instead, the provisions of section 69 of the Act. It cannot

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

2(1) Bhatinda, ITA No. 14/Asr/2015 date of pronouncement 14/12/2015. Held that, 6. In this regard, the facts are not disputed. The question is that when, AO has been held to be wrongly applied the provisions of section 69, whether the addition can be sustained by invoking, instead, the provisions of section 69 of the Act. It cannot

SHIROMANI GURDWARA PARBANDHAK COMMITTEE vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I,

In the result the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenav.S. Cit – I Shirmoni Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee Amritsar Teja Singh Mundri Hall Sri Amritsar Pan:Aants1981K (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 80G(2)(B), the Central Government notifies places of public worship owing to their historical, archaeological, or artistic importance. The following Gurudwaras due to their historical importance have been notified u/s 80G(2)(B) by the Central Government. 1. Gurudwara Harminder Sahib, SO 1974, Dated 19.06.1965. 2. Gurudwara DukhNiwaran Sahib, SO 885, Dated 31.12.1975. 3. Gurudwara Shri Hemkunt

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 of proving the cash credit were satisfied by the assessee the addition should have been deleted rather than upholding the same u/s 56(1)(vii) of the Act. 4 That even otherwise on facts too, the CIT(A) has erred in holding that the Gift to the daughter by his father during the year which came from the Bank