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

section 145(3) on the ground that the I.T.A. No.195/Asr/2022 9 Assessment Year: 2017-18 assessee has not furnished the sales bills. That the addition of Rs 2,74,00,000/- was made u/s 68 of the Act on account of unexplained cash deposit and the same is taxed u/s 115BBE of the Act at the rate

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

7. The ld AR invited our attention on the assessee’s Judgement set-II, at pages 116 to 117related CBDT Circular No. 19/2017, dated 12.06.2017 and it has been stated in the paragraph 2.1(i) of the circular that the amount advanced for business transaction did not fall within the definition of deemed dividend u/s 2

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

7. The ld AR invited our attention on the assessee’s Judgement set-II, at pages 116 to 117related CBDT Circular No. 19/2017, dated 12.06.2017 and it has been stated in the paragraph 2.1(i) of the circular that the amount advanced for business transaction did not fall within the definition of deemed dividend u/s 2

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

2 below sub section (1) of 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

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

2(24)(iia) – defining income to include voluntary contribution received by a charitable trust or institution, and section 68. Where a receipt is admitted as income, where, pray, and even as afore-stated, is the need to travel to section 68 which, as afore-noted, requires proving the nature and source of the receipt lest

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

7,23,34,900/- which have been sold for Rs.20,41,087/- after a very short period. It is of importance that the shares are unquoted shares and the basis of valuation of unquoted share as per Rule 11U is to be on the basis of FMV computed on the basis of value on the valuation date as determined

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

7,37,948/- has been made u/s 68 on account of cash deposited in ICICI Bank account. I.T.A. No.258/Asr/2022 10 Assessment Year: 2008-09 The ld. Counsel further argued that as per section 68 of the Act, any sum found credited in the books of an assessee was maintainedin any previous year. As such the primary requirement for invoking

DR. HARPRIT SINGH ,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Choudhry & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.संसंसंसं././././I.T.A No.195/Asr/2018 िनधा"रणवष"/A.Y.:2011-12 िनधा"रणवष" िनधा"रणवष" िनधा"रणवष" Dr. Harprit Singh, C/O M/S. Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Orthonova Hospital, Near Nari Income-Tax, Niketan, Nakoddar Road, Central Circle –Ii, Jalandhar Jalandhar(Pb) (Pb) Pan: Acmps 7237 F अपीलाथ"Appellant अपीलाथ" ""यथ"/Respondent ""यथ" अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" ""यथ" ""यथ"

68 it cannot be taxed under section 69 of the Act nor can be brought to tax as deemed dividend u/s. 2(22)(e) of the Act.In the light of above submission, the learned Counsel submitted, the CIT (A) was not justified in sustaining the addition, when the AO was not certain under which head the addition should

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

68 of the Act. The appellant, then, has referred to the definition of 'Books of accounts' as provided in section 2(12A) of the Income Tax Act which provides, "books includes ledgers, day books, cash books 7

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

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 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

2 is concerned, apparently when the Tribunal has found as a fact that the assessee was receiving money from the customers in hands against the payment on delivery of the vehicles on receipt from the dealer the question of such amount standing in the hooks of account of the assessee would not attract section 68 because the cash deposit

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

2. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) was in error in not appreciating the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of NRA Iron and Steel Pvt. Ltd., where the Apex Court while discussing genuineness of share capital laid down the general principles

THE DHAMAI COOPERATIVE AGRICULTURE SERVICE SOCIETY LIMITED,HOSHIARPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , HOSHIARPUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the appellant are allowed and the order(s) of the Kerala High Court and other authorities to the contrary are set aside

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No.273/Asr/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18

68,544/- Thus, it is clear that the assessee has parked its surplus/idle funds with the aforesaid banks and is earning huge interest income on FDRs. The assessee has claimed its entire income as deduction under section 80P of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Vide Notice under section 142(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 issued

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

2. That the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the amount of loan was received from the above said parties during the year under consideration through banking channels and the same was paid back through banking channels during the same year and, as such, the confirmation of addition as made by the Ld. CIT(A) is against

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

2. That the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the amount of loan was received from the above said parties during the year under consideration through banking channels and the same was paid back through banking channels during the same year and, as such, the confirmation of addition as made by the Ld. CIT(A) is against

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

2(22)(e), for it to be regarded as dividend there-under. The only amount ‘repaid’ by the assessee to GAPL during this period (i.e., from 15.10.2013 to 06.11.2013) is Rs. 7,69,144 (on 16.10.2013), which is in respect of credits (dated 29.07.2013 & 31.07.2013) toward insurance payment. The same, though liable to be construed as dividend u/s. 2

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

7. The ITA No. 66/Asr/2022 is discussed as a lead case for adjudication. The Ld. PCIT held the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer is held to be erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of revenue in terms of the provisions of clause (a) of Explanation 2 below sub section (1) of section

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

7. The ITA No. 66/Asr/2022 is discussed as a lead case for adjudication. The Ld. PCIT held the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer is held to be erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of revenue in terms of the provisions of clause (a) of Explanation 2 below sub section (1) of section