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

68. 11. That the learned assessing Officer has erred in rejecting the books of accounts u/s145(3), without serving the show cause notice as embedded in Sec 144 read with Sec145(3). I.T.A. No.195/Asr/2022 4 Assessment Year: 2017-18 12. That the appellant craves leave to add, amend any ground of appeal.” 2. Brief facts of the case are that

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, AMRITSAR. vs. SH. SHIV RAJ SINGH BAWA, AMRITSAR.

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is allowed and the assessee’s CO, dismissed

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 407/Asr/2016 Assessment Year: 2012-13

20,000 other than by crossed cheque/bank draft. In pursuance to this proviso, r. 6DD has been brought into the statute. This rule has been amended from time to time. The assessee will get the exemption from the rigors of s. 40A(3) if he is able to establish that his case falls within

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

20 Sant Baba Bhag Singh M. C. Society v. Dy. CIT been admitted as income, which is the purport of section 68, so that it would be of no consequence. The argument is misleading in-as-much as we have already clarified the two provisions to be in pari materia, entailing, in fact, the same tax liability. The purport

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

3 and 4 of the assessee are rejected. 18 Farukh Ahmad Zeb v. ITO 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

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

20 Assessment Year: 2017-18 “i. Judgment in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income-tax v. Vaishno Devi Refoils & Solvex reported in [2018] 96 taxmann.com 469 [SC) SUPREME COURT OF INDIA and the relevant portion is reproduced below: "Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Cash credit (Firm/partner, in case of) - Assessment year 2010-11 - For relevant

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"

20 0, 00,000 received Dr. Harprit Singh v. DCIT-CC-II, Jalandhar/I.T.A. No.195/ASR/2018/A.Y.:11-12 Page 10 of 11 by the Assessee was in the nature of a casual and non-recurring receipt which can be brought tax under section 10 (3) of the Act. Having held that it could not in the nature of capital gain

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

68 without providing the benefit of opening cash in hand and agriculture income earned during the year under consideration. 5. That the CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating that the cash was deposited in bank out of agriculture income earned by the assessee during the year under consideration. I.T.A. No.258/Asr/2022 3 Assessment Year: 2008-09 6. That

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

3 parties namely that; Name of Person Amount Received Sh.Vinod Kumar 20,00,000/- I.T.A. Nos. 250 & 359/Asr/2025 4 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Sh. Jagjit Singh 11,00,000/- Smt. Pawandeep Kaur 20,00,000/- 5. Aggrieved, both the parties have filed these cross appeals. We have heard Sh. Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate, ld. counsel for the assessee at length

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

3 parties namely that; Name of Person Amount Received Sh.Vinod Kumar 20,00,000/- I.T.A. Nos. 250 & 359/Asr/2025 4 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Sh. Jagjit Singh 11,00,000/- Smt. Pawandeep Kaur 20,00,000/- 5. Aggrieved, both the parties have filed these cross appeals. We have heard Sh. Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate, ld. counsel for the assessee at length

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

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

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

3), read with section 263, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and rule 6DD of Income-tax Rules, 1962 - Business disallowance - Cash payment exceeding prescribed limit (Rule 6DD) - Assessment year 2013-14 - Assessee-company was engaged in business of manufacturing of dairy products Assessee filed return and Assessing Officer passed assessment order after making certain additions - Principal Commissioner observed

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

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 of the Act cannot be invoked. 18. Without prejudice to above, the assessee has claimed wage expenses and the said liability

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

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 of the Act cannot be invoked. 18. Without prejudice to above, the assessee has claimed wage expenses and the said liability

SMT. KIRAN MAHAJAN,JAMMU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2) JAMMU

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 319 & S.A. 15/(Asr)/2017 Assessment Year: 2012-13

section 68, it is in fact immaterial whether the amount credited continues to outstand as at the 14 Kiran Mahajan v. ITO year-end, or not, i.e., credit stand since neutralized, as by repayment of the money, or in any other manner. 5.4 It may, at this stage, also be relevant to, in view of the aforesaid facts, examine

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(2), JAMMU vs. SH. NEERAJ AGGARWAL , JAMMU

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 349/(Asr)/2017 Assessment Year: 2010-11

68,663/-, including fresh purchase for Rs.2.15 lacs during AY 2008-09. This needs to be explained, which was not. (g) the assessee’s turnover, at Rs.2733.91 lacs for the current year, up from a range of Rs.8-10 cr. for the preceding 3 years, falls to Rs.1.36 cr. for the following year, which in fact is found

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

3. PCIT vs Swati Bajaj [2022] 139 taxmann.com 352 (Calcutta)/(2022) 288 Taxman 403 (Calcutta)/12022] 446 ITR 56 (Calcutta) (also discussed in above ITAT order) - Rejecting Tribunal holding that there is no merit in the argument of the revenue as the assessee has placed on record the relevant contract notes proper documentary evidence undertaking purchase/ sale of the shares

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

3. PCIT vs Swati Bajaj [2022] 139 taxmann.com 352 (Calcutta)/(2022) 288 Taxman 403 (Calcutta)/12022] 446 ITR 56 (Calcutta) (also discussed in above ITAT order) - Rejecting Tribunal holding that there is no merit in the argument of the revenue as the assessee has placed on record the relevant contract notes proper documentary evidence undertaking purchase/ sale of the shares

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

section 68 stands rightly invoked by the AO in the facts and circumstances the case. The impugned order is accordingly set aside on this ground, and the impugned addition upheld. 5. The second ground is in respect of addition of Rs. 15 lacs on account of unexplained investment toward purchase of agricultural land, purchased during the year

PANKAJ JINDAL CONTRACTOR,MANSA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-I, BATHINDA, BATHINDA

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Physical Hearing) I.T.A. No. 695/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S Pankaj Jindal Contractor, Vs. Dcit-Circle-1, Near Vidya Bharti School, Bathinda. Mansa. [Pan:-Aajfp8008L] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Sudhir Sehgal, Adv. Respondent By Sh. Charan Dass, Sr. Dr

Section 40A(3) of the Act by making payment exceeding Rs. 20,000/- in cash without appreciating the submissions of the assessee. 8. The Ld. CIT(A) NFAC has erred on facts and lawwhile confirming the action of the AO of making the addition of Rs. 16,76,426/ on account of alleged difference in the account