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

24 Assessment Year: 2017-18 show an defect in assessee's records or in books of account maintained by assessee, section 145 could not be invoked for rejecting books of account.” iv. Agarwal Transport Service vs. DCIT [2017] 88 taxmann.com 660 (Jodhpur - Trib.) Section 145 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Method of accounting - Rejection of accounts (Others

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

24 Assessment Year: 2017-18 "Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Cash credit (Firm, in case of) - Where

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

68. 3.9 At this juncture it may be relevant to discuss the interface of section 2(24)(iia) – defining

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

68 of the Act. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the authorities below ought to have disproved the claim of the assesse by way of rebutting its contention with support of corroborative documentary evidences on record after granting an adequate opportunity of being heard. 11. The Hon’ble Supreme Court

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, JAMMU vs. M/S MOHD ASRAF SHEIKH, JAMMU

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed

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

section 68 for establishing credibility and identity of shareholders. However, we found that the Ld. CIT(A) did not even either advert to cause field enquiry under co-terminus power equal to the AO or else called for a remand report from the AO in rebuttal which revealed that assessee failed to discharge primary onus to establish identity

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

section 68” 6.1 In this regard, it appears that these names and the amount have been taken from the 03 parties out of 07 are tabulated as under: Name of Person Amount Received Sh.Vinod Kumar 20,00,000/- Smt. Pawandeep Kaur 20,00,000/- Sh. Jagjit Singh 11,00,000/- 6.2 The ld. AO further observed that these parties

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

section 68” 6.1 In this regard, it appears that these names and the amount have been taken from the 03 parties out of 07 are tabulated as under: Name of Person Amount Received Sh.Vinod Kumar 20,00,000/- Smt. Pawandeep Kaur 20,00,000/- Sh. Jagjit Singh 11,00,000/- 6.2 The ld. AO further observed that these parties

SH. VIKRANT KANSHAL,BATHINDA vs. THE ICNOMET-AX OFFICER,, BATHINDA

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 367/Asr/2014 Assessment Year: 2008-09

24 ITR 405 (SC), to be a separate assessable entity. The Hon'ble Court, after a reference to the provisions of sections 68

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

68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. That the AO has totally overlooked the facts and circumstances of the case and resorted to bald addition. 3. That the appellant craves leave to add/amend any ground of appeal at the time of hearing.” Farooq Ahmad Ahangar v. ITO ITA No. 606/Asr/2018 (Assessment Year 2009-10): 4. Briefly, the facts

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

68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. That the AO has totally overlooked the facts and circumstances of the case and resorted to bald addition. 3. That the appellant craves leave to add/amend any ground of appeal at the time of hearing.” Farooq Ahmad Ahangar v. ITO ITA No. 606/Asr/2018 (Assessment Year 2009-10): 4. Briefly, the facts

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

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

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

24,46,114/- made by the A.O. u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. He failed to appreciate that when all the ingredients of section

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

24,46,114/- made by the A.O. u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. He failed to appreciate that when all the ingredients of section

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

24,46,114/- made by the A.O. u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. He failed to appreciate that when all the ingredients of section

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

24 Taxman.com.31(CHD)), the question before the Co-ordinate Bench was whether unexplained cash credit under section 68

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

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

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