SHRI MANJIT SINGH S/O SHRI.GURDEV SINGH KHERA,MOGA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER -II, MOGA

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

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

200/- by applying the provisions of Section 68 of the Act. 3. That the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals

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

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

3) of the Act. It appears from the record that the AO was determined not to consider or accept the books of accounts produced by the assessee during the entire assessment proceedings and did not give the appellant the opportunity to explain each and every entry with supporting documentary evidence. The action of the AO appears to be whimsical

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

3. I have heard the parties, and perused the material on record. 3.1 Section 41(1) of the Act, in its relevant part, reads as under: Profits chargeable to tax. (1) Where an allowance or deduction has been made in the assessment for any year in respect of loss, expenditure or trading liability incurred by the assessee (hereinafter referred

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

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

68,459/- as per Books of Account. Thus, an excess stock of Rs.6,26,500/- was found. The assessment for the Ay 2019-20 was completed u/s 143(3) by invoking the provisions of section 115BBE on excess stock amounting to Rs. 6,26,500/- as alleged by the department. Further, the assessee has also offered

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

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

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

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

SHRI GAURAV NARULA ,AHMEDABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeal of the

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

68,240/- during the assessment proceeding. The addition was made in two heads; i) cash I.T.A. No.619 & 434/Asr/2018 4 &I.T.A. No.435/Asr/2018 deposit in bank amount of Rs.4,09,500/-. ii) amount of Rs.2,86,250/- on account of investment in the property & the same as unexplained investment. The assessee in appeal proceeding and also before the ITAT also challenged

SHRI ANKUSH NARULA,AMRITSAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE, AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeal of the

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

68,240/- during the assessment proceeding. The addition was made in two heads; i) cash I.T.A. No.619 & 434/Asr/2018 4 &I.T.A. No.435/Asr/2018 deposit in bank amount of Rs.4,09,500/-. ii) amount of Rs.2,86,250/- on account of investment in the property & the same as unexplained investment. The assessee in appeal proceeding and also before the ITAT also challenged

SHRI GAURAV NARULA ,FEROZPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE , AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeal of the

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

68,240/- during the assessment proceeding. The addition was made in two heads; i) cash I.T.A. No.619 & 434/Asr/2018 4 &I.T.A. No.435/Asr/2018 deposit in bank amount of Rs.4,09,500/-. ii) amount of Rs.2,86,250/- on account of investment in the property & the same as unexplained investment. The assessee in appeal proceeding and also before the ITAT also challenged

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

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

3. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in allowing appeal of the assessee by holding that there is not a single evidence to form reasons to believe, ignoring the fact that the assessee could not produce the most basic and vital document like sub¬contract agreement and as such the AO had reasons to believe that the income chargeable

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

3. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in allowing appeal of the assessee by holding that there is not a single evidence to form reasons to believe, ignoring the fact that the assessee could not produce the most basic and vital document like sub¬contract agreement and as such the AO had reasons to believe that the income chargeable

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