M/S ACTIVE TOOLS (P). LIMITED,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -II, JALANDHAR

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

21. He argued that explanation 2 in section 263 is not applicable retrospectively. He relied upon the decisions in SATISH KUMAR VS PR CIT ITA NO. 258/ASR/2019, A.V. Industries vs. ACIT ITA No.3469/M/2010 and Metacaps Engineering &Mahendra Construction Co. vs. CIT I.T.A. No. 2895/Mum/2014. 22. That the Ld. AR had further submitted that amendment to section 115BBE

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 on account of huge cash amount deposited by assessee-jeweller in its bank account post demonetization, since assessee had explained source of said cash deposits as sales of jewellery, produced sale bills and admitted same as revenue receipt as well as offered it to tax and assessee also represented outgo of stocks which was matching with sales, impugned addition

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

21 Farukh Ahmad Zeb v. ITO quantum addition made on account of unexplained creditors/investments found in books of the assessee by mentioning wrong section u/s 68 or 69 of the Act was not available, since, it is being delivered on later date. Thus, Ground no. 2 is rejected. 22. In the above view, we find no merits

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

5% of the total donations or Rs.1 lac, whichever is higher), be at 30% of such donation, i.e., besides the tax, if any, payable by it on its’ other 10 Sant Baba Bhag Singh M. C. Society v. Dy. CIT income. As such, the application of any donation for charitable purposes or of it being toward corpus, covered

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

21 Assessment Year: 2017-18 COURT OF ALLAHABAD and the relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced as below: “section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Cash credits (Firm partner, in case of) - Assessment year 1999-2000 assessee firm, engaged in business of cold storage, filed its return of income - Assessing Officer noted that assessee had credits

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

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

5 which was confirmed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi are against the facts of the facts of the case and are untenable under the law. The authorities below did not appreciate that this case does not fall within the mischief of section 68 of the Act. The further submitted that

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

5 years later from date of receiving/repaying unsecured loan from the above said person. The AO has observed that, the assessee failed to arrange confirmation of above said person and though, the addition of Rs. 20 Lakh made by the AO in the hands of assessee for using funds for 48 days only, which is not justified as the assessee

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

5 years later from date of receiving/repaying unsecured loan from the above said person. The AO has observed that, the assessee failed to arrange confirmation of above said person and though, the addition of Rs. 20 Lakh made by the AO in the hands of assessee for using funds for 48 days only, which is not justified as the assessee

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

68 were justified- 4. Suman Poddar Vs ITO Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 26864 OF 2019, [2019] 112 taxmann.com 330 (SC)- Where High Court upheld Tribunal's order holding that assessee's claim for exemption under section 10(38) could not be allowed because share transactions 19 I.T.A. Nos. 346 & 347/Asr/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 were

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

68 were justified- 4. Suman Poddar Vs ITO Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 26864 OF 2019, [2019] 112 taxmann.com 330 (SC)- Where High Court upheld Tribunal's order holding that assessee's claim for exemption under section 10(38) could not be allowed because share transactions 19 I.T.A. Nos. 346 & 347/Asr/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 were

M/S SHANKAR RICE & GENERAL MILLS ,MOGA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE, MOGA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

68, 69 to 69D of the Act to create a deeming fiction to tax any sum already credited / offered as income. Such recourse is unwarranted within the objectives to introduce this section 115BBE of the Act. The objects and reasons for amending the section 115BBE by the Taxation Laws (Second Amendment) Bill, 2016 was to prevent misuse

SHRIMATI JATINDER KAUR ( ALIAS AMRITA),JALANDHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JALANDHAR

In the result all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

section 68. In all these cases it was held that no addition can be made in the hands of the assessee, if there is no incriminating ITA 728-731/Amr/2019 19 document found during the course of search pertaining to the year under consideration. In fact all the documents pertained to AY 2017-18, none was pertaining

SHRIMATI JATINDER KAUR (ALIAS AMRITA),JALANDHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JALANDHAR

In the result all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

section 68. In all these cases it was held that no addition can be made in the hands of the assessee, if there is no incriminating ITA 728-731/Amr/2019 19 document found during the course of search pertaining to the year under consideration. In fact all the documents pertained to AY 2017-18, none was pertaining

SHRIMATI JATINDER KAUR(ALIAS AMRITA),JALANDHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JALANDHAR

In the result all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

section 68. In all these cases it was held that no addition can be made in the hands of the assessee, if there is no incriminating ITA 728-731/Amr/2019 19 document found during the course of search pertaining to the year under consideration. In fact all the documents pertained to AY 2017-18, none was pertaining

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

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

Section 68 of the Act. Therefore, on this count itself the impugned addition Rs.2,35,000/- deserves to be deleted. We thus ‘set aside’ the order of the CIT(A) and delete the addition of Rs.2,35,000/- sustained by him under Sec.68 of the Act. As we have quashed the addition of Rs. 2,35,000/- that

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1 (1), JALANDHAR vs. SHRI ANIL KUMAR WASON, JALANDHAR

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

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No. 164/Asr/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-15

5-II above. The assessee has attempted to discharge his onus, so far as section 68 is concerned. The AO had been required to make an enquiry and verify the genuinity of the appellant's claim; however the AO in the remand report reiterated/ repeated the facts which were pre-existing in the assessment order. However, the AO without

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