SHRIMATI MEERA AGGARWAL,JALANDHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE- 2, JALANDHAR

Bench: Shri L. P. Sahu & Shri Ravish Sood

200/- has been made by Ld. ACIT and failed to verify the existence of three circumstances which are necessary for invoking section 69B of the Income Tax Act. 8. That the Ld. CIT(A) has misdirected himself in sustaining the valuation of Jewellery under section 69B of the Act at market price ruling on the date of search

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

SH. BARAT PAL SOOD,,PHAGWARA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,, PHAGWARA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

section 69 that the ITO is not obliged to treat the unexplained investment as income in each and every case. Where the assessee was a young land and could not have earned the income in question, the deletion of addition by the IT A T was justified. In this case, the funds were deposited in the bank account during

SHRI OM PARKASH LEGAL HEIAR SMT PUSHPA VERMA,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(3), JALANDHAR

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A. No. 756/Asr/2017 Assessment Year: 2014-15

68, i.e., to explain the nature and source of the credit. The question therefore is if the initial onus on the Revenue to show the remission or cessation of a trading liability, for it to invoke the provision, is satisfied in the facts and circumstances of the case; the matter, as afore-noted, being essentially and primarily factual. This

SHRIMATI NANDINI SHARMA ,AMRITSAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, AMRITSAR

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

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

200/- [Stock as per books of accounts Rs.48,68,459/- Less stock found Rs.41,07,259/-]. 6. The Ld. AR contended that the CIT(A) has erred in confirming the order of the AO as there was no excess stock and entries made in the books of accounts cannot be taken as conclusive to invoke the provisions of section

SHRI ABDUL MAJID KAW ,SRINAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- 3 (1), SRINAGAR

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

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

200/- u/s 44AD of the Act. The case was selected for scrutiny. The assessee could not made the compliance due to the fact that the entire valley was under curfew and strikes was continued from July to December 2016. The ld. AO while framing assessment had made addition amount of Rs.6,41,726/- u/s 68

SH. SURINDER KUMAR MAHAJAN, GOVT. CONTRACTOR,,PATHANKOT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,, PATHANKOT

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is allowed

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

200/- in its return of income 3 Surinder Kumar Mahajan v. ITO for the year under consideration which included the deemed profit u/s 44AD of the Act of Rs.4,17,106/- being 8% of Rs.52,13,825/-, and therefore, the balance 92% of the gross receipts or turnover of the assessee were treated as his deemed expenses

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, SAMBA vs. SH. ASHOK KUMAR SHARMA, SAMBA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in Ground nos

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No.475/Asr/2016 Assessment Year: 2013-14

200/- was received from Smt. SandhyaKhajuria D/o RameshwarDassKhajuria R/o 124/8 Greater Kailash Jammu who is teacher by profession working as Principal in Sunshine School Nagrotra. She has income from salary as well as rental income. The assessee had furnished copy of ITR, copy of bank statement computation of income etc. confirming the said loan, APB page No.171

KAMAL RAHIL,JALANDHAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

200/- deposited in Standard Chartered Bank and ICICI Bank respectively. The assessee vide his reply dated 27.10.2011 explained with supporting documents that he is an agent and during the period under reference, he was providing services for getting students admission in foreign institutions for which lum sum payments in cash were received from them which was recorded in the books

SHRI SATISH KUMAR. S/O. SH. HANS RAJ ,HOSHIARPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-4, HOSHIARPUR

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.258/Asr/2019 िनधा"रणवष"/A.Y.:2014-15 िनधा"रणवष" िनधा"रणवष" िनधा"रणवष" Shri Satish Kumar S/O Hans Raj, Vs. Principal Commissioner Of B-12, Mch-366/13, Billa Income-Tax-1, Jalandhar House, New Jagatpura, Hoshiarpur Pan: Aawpk 0932 D अपीलाथ" Appellant अपीलाथ" ""यथ"/Respondent ""यथ" अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" ""यथ" ""यथ"

68,192 on weig bridge expenses. As these expenses were paid to particular entity which are in the nature of Works contract and liable to TDS under section 194C of the Act. However, the perusal of records suggest that there is nothing on record that TDS was deducted on these payments. The Pr.CIT further, observed that the assessee

SATIA INDUSTRIES LIMITED,MUKTSAR, PUNJAB vs. DCIT, ACIT CIRCLE 1, BATHINDA

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Udayan Das Gupta & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 527/Asr/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2020-21

200 3SM. These products are extensively used in the printing of text books, note books, directories, envelops, diaries, calendars, computer stationery, copy manufacture annual reports and high-class printing segment for domestic as well as export sales”. 3. On the directions of the DRP, the TPO made certain additions which have been challenged before the Tribunal by raising following grounds

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

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee ITA No

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No.238/Asr/2023 Assessment Year: 2020-21

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

THE KOT RAM DASS COOP. THIRFT & CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2 (4), JALANDHAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee ITA No

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No.86/Asr/2021 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

DCIT, CIRCLE-1, BATHINDA vs. DMR BUILDERS PVT LTD, BATHINDA

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed being devoid of merits

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Hybrid Hearing) I.T.A. Nos. 292 & 293/Asr/2024 Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18

200 ft wide road and (ii) Construction of ROB in lieu of level crossing on NH-64, Bhatinda, Punjab, supported by copies of billed amount, ledger copy print out, bank statements containing reflection of payments received, amounting to Rs.6.69 crores (pertaining to Asst year 2016-17) and Rs. 23.09 crores ( pertaining to Asst year 2017-18 ) along with the copy

DCIT, CIRCLE-1, BATHINDA vs. DMR BUILDERS PVT LTD, BATHINDA

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed being devoid of merits

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Hybrid Hearing) I.T.A. Nos. 292 & 293/Asr/2024 Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18

200 ft wide road and (ii) Construction of ROB in lieu of level crossing on NH-64, Bhatinda, Punjab, supported by copies of billed amount, ledger copy print out, bank statements containing reflection of payments received, amounting to Rs.6.69 crores (pertaining to Asst year 2016-17) and Rs. 23.09 crores ( pertaining to Asst year 2017-18 ) along with the copy

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

200 paid by the assessee u/s. 40A(3), being not covered by any of the exceptions prescribed under rule 6DD (of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 – ‘the Rules’). In appeal, the assessee found favour with the ld. CIT(A) on the basis that the assessee had made investment in purchase (AY 2012-13) ITO v. Shiv Raj Singh Bawa

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PHAGWARA CIRCLE, PHAGWARA vs. SHRI CHUNI LAL, PHILLAUR

In the result, these appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

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

Section 133A of the Act can be retracted at the whim and fancy of the assessee. In the light of the aforesaid, the assertions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted.” The learned DR prayed that either the assessment order be restored or the matter may be remanded back to the CIT appeal for fresh