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

216 Lajpat Nagar, Tax-1, Jalandhar Jalandhar (Punjab) [PAN: AJBPJ 4673Q] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T. A. No. 67/Asr/2022 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Sh. Sukhjit Singh V. Pr. Commissioner of Income Village & P.O. Manik Dheri, Tax-1, Jalandhar Hoshiarpur (Punjab) [PAN: BHAPS 9843P] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T. A. No. 68/Asr/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Sh. Manmohan Singh Kapur V. Pr. Commissioner of Income

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

216 Lajpat Nagar, Tax-1, Jalandhar Jalandhar (Punjab) [PAN: AJBPJ 4673Q] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T. A. No. 67/Asr/2022 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Sh. Sukhjit Singh V. Pr. Commissioner of Income Village & P.O. Manik Dheri, Tax-1, Jalandhar Hoshiarpur (Punjab) [PAN: BHAPS 9843P] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T. A. No. 68/Asr/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Sh. Manmohan Singh Kapur V. Pr. Commissioner of Income

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

216 Lajpat Nagar, Tax-1, Jalandhar Jalandhar (Punjab) [PAN: AJBPJ 4673Q] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T. A. No. 67/Asr/2022 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Sh. Sukhjit Singh V. Pr. Commissioner of Income Village & P.O. Manik Dheri, Tax-1, Jalandhar Hoshiarpur (Punjab) [PAN: BHAPS 9843P] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T. A. No. 68/Asr/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Sh. Manmohan Singh Kapur V. Pr. Commissioner of Income

MESERS SHREE BHAGWATI COTTON TRADERS,BATHINDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD 1 (2), BATHINDA

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

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

68 on account of unexplained credit in the books of account without appreciating that the primary onus of proving capacity of the creditor as well as genuineness of the transaction was not discharged by the assessee.” I.T.A. No. 479/Asr/2018 5 &I.T.A. No. 480/Asr/2018 4. Brief fact of the case is that both appeal of the assessee and the revenue

INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD 1 (2), BATHINDA vs. MESERS SHREE BHAGWATI COTTON TRADERS ,, BATHINDA

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

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

68 on account of unexplained credit in the books of account without appreciating that the primary onus of proving capacity of the creditor as well as genuineness of the transaction was not discharged by the assessee.” I.T.A. No. 479/Asr/2018 5 &I.T.A. No. 480/Asr/2018 4. Brief fact of the case is that both appeal of the assessee and the revenue

M/S BLUE CITY TOWNSHIP & COLONIZERS,AMRITSAR. vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,, AMRITSAR.

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

section 68. 20. Per contra, the Ld. DR supported the impugned order. He contended that the AO observed that the amounts which the assessee paid over and above the prices mentioned in the registries of purchase of land by the assessee company during FY 2008-09 were amounting to a sum of Rs 216

SHRI MOHAMMAD ABBAS ASHRAF,SRINAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -1, SRINAGAR

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

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

68 of the Act. The assessee’s counsel argued that the assessment was reopened solely based on suspicion rather than a formation of belief, citing the ITAT Delhi Bench case of Bir Bahadur Singh Sijwali v, l.T.O. as precedent. The court found that the AO had not conducted any investigation to ascertain the source of the impugned cash deposits

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

Section 2(22)(e), it was argued therein, should be read down inasmuch as it carried an irrebuttable presumption of a loan or advance to a substantial shareholder being a distribution of profit and, thus, dividend thereto, by definition, by a company (in which public is not substantially interested). It worked unfairly on those repaying the loan as against

SHRI SUKHDEV SINGH KANG,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICR, NAKODAR

Bench: Sh. Ravish Sood & Dr. M. L. Meena

216/- is also deemed to have escaped assessment within the meaning of clause(a) to explanation 2 to section 147 of the Income Tax Act 1961 for the AY 2009-10.” As is discernible from the assessment order, the A.O, viz. Income-tax Officer, Ward-4, Phagwara after reopening the case of the assessee

SHRIMATI RAVINDER BAWA,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(3), JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Laliet Kumar & Dr. M. L. Meena

68) e) Copy of A/c No. 0242000125537289. (Paper Book Page No. 69) f) Copy of cash book of branch from 30.06.2010 to 10.07.2010. (Paper Book Page No. 71 to 117) g) Details of FDR’s in the name of Ravinder Bawa from 30.06.2010 to 10.07.2010. (Paper Book Page No. 118) h) Certificate of bank to the effect that no cash

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JAMMU vs. M/S FIL INDUSTRIES,, SRINAGAR

In the result appeal of the assessee ground no 4 to 4

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

216 ITR 548 (Bombay) ii) G.B. Bros and Konda Rajagopala Chetty vs. ITO 262 ITR 774 (AP) iii) CIT vs. Bhilai Engineering Corporation (P) ltd. 133 ITR 687 (MP) iv) ITO vs. Laxmi Packers (2007) 14 SOT 303 that once deduction has been allowed in the initial assessment year, it cannot be re-examined in the succeeding assessment years

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JAMMU vs. M/S FIL INDUSTRIES,, SRINAGAR

In the result appeal of the assessee ground no 4 to 4

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

216 ITR 548 (Bombay) ii) G.B. Bros and Konda Rajagopala Chetty vs. ITO 262 ITR 774 (AP) iii) CIT vs. Bhilai Engineering Corporation (P) ltd. 133 ITR 687 (MP) iv) ITO vs. Laxmi Packers (2007) 14 SOT 303 that once deduction has been allowed in the initial assessment year, it cannot be re-examined in the succeeding assessment years

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JAMMU vs. M/S FILL INDUSTRIES,, SRINAGAR

In the result appeal of the assessee ground no 4 to 4

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

216 ITR 548 (Bombay) ii) G.B. Bros and Konda Rajagopala Chetty vs. ITO 262 ITR 774 (AP) iii) CIT vs. Bhilai Engineering Corporation (P) ltd. 133 ITR 687 (MP) iv) ITO vs. Laxmi Packers (2007) 14 SOT 303 that once deduction has been allowed in the initial assessment year, it cannot be re-examined in the succeeding assessment years

M/S FIL INDUSTRIES LTD,SRINAGAR vs. THE ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SRINAGAR

In the result appeal of the assessee ground no 4 to 4

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

216 ITR 548 (Bombay) ii) G.B. Bros and Konda Rajagopala Chetty vs. ITO 262 ITR 774 (AP) iii) CIT vs. Bhilai Engineering Corporation (P) ltd. 133 ITR 687 (MP) iv) ITO vs. Laxmi Packers (2007) 14 SOT 303 that once deduction has been allowed in the initial assessment year, it cannot be re-examined in the succeeding assessment years

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JAMMU vs. M/S FIL INDUSTRIES,, SRINAGAR

In the result appeal of the assessee ground no 4 to 4

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

216 ITR 548 (Bombay) ii) G.B. Bros and Konda Rajagopala Chetty vs. ITO 262 ITR 774 (AP) iii) CIT vs. Bhilai Engineering Corporation (P) ltd. 133 ITR 687 (MP) iv) ITO vs. Laxmi Packers (2007) 14 SOT 303 that once deduction has been allowed in the initial assessment year, it cannot be re-examined in the succeeding assessment years

M/S FIL INDUSTRIES LTD,SRINAGAR vs. THE DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SRINAGAR

In the result appeal of the assessee ground no 4 to 4

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

216 ITR 548 (Bombay) ii) G.B. Bros and Konda Rajagopala Chetty vs. ITO 262 ITR 774 (AP) iii) CIT vs. Bhilai Engineering Corporation (P) ltd. 133 ITR 687 (MP) iv) ITO vs. Laxmi Packers (2007) 14 SOT 303 that once deduction has been allowed in the initial assessment year, it cannot be re-examined in the succeeding assessment years

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JAMMU vs. M/S FILL INDUSTRIES,, SRINAGAR

In the result appeal of the assessee ground no 4 to 4

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

216 ITR 548 (Bombay) ii) G.B. Bros and Konda Rajagopala Chetty vs. ITO 262 ITR 774 (AP) iii) CIT vs. Bhilai Engineering Corporation (P) ltd. 133 ITR 687 (MP) iv) ITO vs. Laxmi Packers (2007) 14 SOT 303 that once deduction has been allowed in the initial assessment year, it cannot be re-examined in the succeeding assessment years

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JAMMU vs. M/S FILL INDUSTRIES,, SRINAGAR

In the result appeal of the assessee ground no 4 to 4

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

216 ITR 548 (Bombay) ii) G.B. Bros and Konda Rajagopala Chetty vs. ITO 262 ITR 774 (AP) iii) CIT vs. Bhilai Engineering Corporation (P) ltd. 133 ITR 687 (MP) iv) ITO vs. Laxmi Packers (2007) 14 SOT 303 that once deduction has been allowed in the initial assessment year, it cannot be re-examined in the succeeding assessment years

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMMU vs. M/S. FIL INDUSTRIES LTD, SRINAGAR

In the result appeal of the assessee ground no 4 to 4

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

216 ITR 548 (Bombay) ii) G.B. Bros and Konda Rajagopala Chetty vs. ITO 262 ITR 774 (AP) iii) CIT vs. Bhilai Engineering Corporation (P) ltd. 133 ITR 687 (MP) iv) ITO vs. Laxmi Packers (2007) 14 SOT 303 that once deduction has been allowed in the initial assessment year, it cannot be re-examined in the succeeding assessment years