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

v. Akshit "Enquiry under section 133B which has been strongly Kumar [2021] relied upon by Revenue, was conducted in Financial Year 124 2016-17 i.e. post closure of the business. The ITAT has taxmann.com juxtaposed the same against the other relevant material on 123/277 Taxman record. The crucial factor that prevailed upon the ITAT to 423 (Delhi) decide

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

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

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 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

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

v. Madho Pd. Jatia}. 43. To summarise, as on 1-4-2014 the Act only required that the transactions carried out on recognized association will be deemed as non-speculative and NCDEX fulfilled all conditions during the period when there were no rules prescribed as well as the period after they were prescribed clearly establishes ITA No. 331/Asr./2018

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

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

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

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

v. Dy. CIT The loan or advance or payment is, under such circumstances, to be deemed as dividend to the extent the paying company has accumulated profits, the exception being where the lending company is in the business of money lending. 4.2 We may at this stage advert to the relevant transactions comprising the impugned credit of Rs. 3266.12 lacs

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

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

47,189/- and in the year under consideration assessee suffered STCG loss of Rs. 30,618/- and carried transaction of Rs. 61,97,37,626/-, which also proves beyond any doubt that assessee had not traded only in one script as alleged by the Ld. Assessing Officer. During the period under consideration assessee invested /traded in multiple scripts, which

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

47,189/- and in the year under consideration assessee suffered STCG loss of Rs. 30,618/- and carried transaction of Rs. 61,97,37,626/-, which also proves beyond any doubt that assessee had not traded only in one script as alleged by the Ld. Assessing Officer. During the period under consideration assessee invested /traded in multiple scripts, which

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

2(47)(v) inasmuch as the possession continues to be retained by the assessee. The assessee has been, we observe, subsequent to the issue of notice u/s. 148 on 11.02.2014, allowed several opportunities to produce the so-called 'buyer' of the property (who is stated to have paid the assessee Rs. 31 lacs in cash and, further, without taking possession

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)

v) The Notified Sikh Gurdwaras at Muktsar; 19 (vi) Gurdwara Dukhniwaran Sahib PadshahiNaumi along with Gurdwara Moti Bagh (including Gurdwara Sudha Sar) Khel Sahib, Patiala; (vii) Gurdwara Fatehgarh Sahib (Shahidi Asthan Baba Fateh Singh Ji and Baba Jorawar Singh Ji) along with GurdwraJotisarup, Burj Mata Gujri and Shahid Ganj situated in HarnamNagar; (viii) [Gurdwara PadshahiNaumi at Dhamtan along with Bunga

NEERAJ KUMAR SETHI,DELHI vs. ITO, NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE (NFAC)

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

47,645/-, Notice u/s.133(6) of the Act, was issued by the AO on 26.02.2022 to Mr. Ashok Gupta, Proprietor of Gayatri Maa (AAAPG2240G) &Ridhi Sindhi Impex (AAAPG2240G) and to Anuj Kumar Gupta Proprietor of Parth International (AGJPG39758). Both the notices have been delivered to one e-mail caashokgupta@yahoo.co.in, but no compliance have been made by both the parties

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