POONAM MARWAHA,AMRITSAR vs. ACIT DCIT CEN CIR, AMRITSAR

Bench: Sh. Vikram Singh Yadav & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

1. [2018] 366 taxmann.com (SC) SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Deniel Merchants (P.) Ltd. v. Income-tax Officer 95 Section 68, read with section 263

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

1. That the assessee has furnished date-wise capital account, Copy of ITR and copy of computation of partner ShriGautamAggarwal during the proceedings ADNPA7060L under section 263.The copy of the same is enclosed at page no 486-487 and I.T.A. No.117/Asr/2022 19 Assessment Year: 2017-18 543 to 544. 2. That during proceedings under section 263 the assessee

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"

1) of the Act must be read in conjunction with the expression "erroneous" and unless the view taken by the Assessing Officer is found to be unsustainable in law, the powers under section 263 of the Act cannot be invoked. 8. No doubt, clause (a) of the Explanation 2 to section 263 deems the order to be erroneous

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

section 142(1) of the Act on 8.8.2018 and 143(2) of the Act were received. 6. During assessment proceedings, information was filed vide letters dated 05.10.2018, 09.10.2018, 30.11.2018. the information was filled by the assessee credit entry of same date in the account of the assessee includes copy of loan account showing the entry of loan amount

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

263 of the Act is of the opinion that onus cast on the assessee u/s 68 of the Act has not been discharged by her. It is submitted that provisions of section 68 of the Act are not attracted on cash deposits in saving bank account with banks. These observations of Ld. Pr. CIT- 1

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

263 of the Act is of the opinion that onus cast on the assessee u/s 68 of the Act has not been discharged by her. It is submitted that provisions of section 68 of the Act are not attracted on cash deposits in saving bank account with banks. These observations of Ld. Pr. CIT- 1

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

263 of the Act is of the opinion that onus cast on the assessee u/s 68 of the Act has not been discharged by her. It is submitted that provisions of section 68 of the Act are not attracted on cash deposits in saving bank account with banks. These observations of Ld. Pr. CIT- 1

NARINDER AND COMPANY,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(5), JALANDHAR

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

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

1 to 18 Narinder and Company v. ITO section 263. It was explained that the record shall be deemed to have included all records relating to any proceeding under this act available at the time of examination by Pr.CIT. Therefore, it was the duty of the PCIT to analyze every record available with him before passing the order

SHRI SATBIR SINGH BHULLAR,AMRITSAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- 5 (4), AMRITSAR

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

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

section 68 was inapplicable for assessment of such gift in assessee’s hands - Held, yes 8. Assessee’s Ground No. 4 The ld. Counsel placed the argument related to Ground No. 4 Ground That CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 737948/- on No 4 account of peak cash deposited in ICICI Bank Account

MAX FINANCIAL SERVICE LIMITED ,NAWANSHAHR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is therefore partly allowed

263 proceedings, there was no occasion to demonstrate the same to her. That even vis-à-vis the issue of interest the only finding of the Ld. Pr.CIT is that it seems that the interest has not been accounted for. The Ld. Pr.CIT has neither cared to examine this issue during revisionary proceedings, nor investigated the same herself and without

MEASAGE. HARYANA PLAST PRIVATE LIMITED,HOSHIARPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1, JALANDHAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

1. That the order of the Learned Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-I is bad, against law and facts. 2. That the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-I has wrongly invoked powers u/s. 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. That the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-I has wrongly passed order u/s. 263 of the Income

SMT. SATVIR KAUR W/O SH. SHINDER SINGH,FEROZEPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

68 read with section 263, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Cash credit (Gift) -Assessment years 2007-08 and 2008-09 - Assessee received certain amount as gifts from his father and sister who were non-residents in India - Assessing Officer after making detailed enquiries, took a view that assessee had duly proved identity, source and creditworthiness of donors - Commissioner

BHUPENDRA FLOUR MILLS PVT LTD,BATHINDA vs. ITO, WARD 1(1), BATHINDA, BATHINDA

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of out above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Shri Udayandasgupta, Jm आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.54/Asr/2025 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) M/S Bhupendra Flour Mills Pvt Ltd. Ito Ward - 1(1) बनाम/ Railway Road Central Revenue Building Bhatinda, Punjab – 151001 Civil Lines, Bhatinda Vs. Punjab - 151001 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaccb-6192-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) - Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Farhat Khan (Cit) – Ld. Dr (Virtual) सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05-02-2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 20.02.2026 : आदेश / O R D E R

68. The assessee has argued that the decisions of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court and the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court, which have upheld the post-amendment taxability of interest on enhanced compensation under Section 56(2)(viii), are per incuriam as they did not expressly consider the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s rulings in Hari Singh

SHRI AMRIT PARKASH SEHGAL (HUF),JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(1), JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, Learned Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalandhar-1 (‘Ld. CIT’) has grossly erred in law in assuming jurisdiction u/s 263 of the income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’). The order passed u/s 263 of the Act directing the Assessing Officer to pass fresh order after necessary enquiries/investigations income is illegal

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3, AMRITSAR vs. SHRIMATI RAJ RANI ARORA, AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeal of the department is dismissed

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

263,318/-+ 60676/- + 135,919/- ) = Rs 19,76,679/- only. Therefore, in view of the above discussion, it is held that the cash available with Sh. Amandeep Singh as on, 17.06.2013 i.e. immediately before depositing cash of Rs. 50,00,000/- and Rs. 50,00,000/- in his KCC premium cash credit account in Kotak Mahindra Bank

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AMRITSAR. vs. SH. JAIMAL SINGH, L/H. SH. PREM CHAND,, TARN TARAN

In the result, the appeal bearing ITA No

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

68+32.09+28.87+301.98+35.95+36.96) = £ 1371.82. Since the residential status of late Prem Chand in India in FY 2006- 07 was “Resident” in accordance with section 6(1) of the Act, therefore the said credit entries totalling to £ 1371.82 were I.T.A. No. 82/Asr/2016 8 & C.O. 11/Asr/2016 taxable in India in AY 2007-08 under the head “ Income from

SHRI GURBINDER SINGH MAHAL,AMRITSAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-IV ( 2), AMRITSAR

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

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

68,499/- cash was deposited in HDFC Bank. Considering the disclosed business income Rs.3,10,540/-, the addition was confirmed amount to Rs.1,95,47,959/- and the assessment was completed u/s 144 of the Act. The assessee prayed that the entire amount of deposit was not properly reconciled by the AO. The withdraw of cash was also not considered

SH. JASWINDER SINGH,BATHINDA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,, BATHINDA

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

section 263 of the Act. Accordingly, the Pr. CIT set-aside the assessment order with a direction to the AO to decide the matter afresh after giving an adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee and examining all the relevant evidence. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee has assailed the order passed by the Pr. CIT u/s 263

SHRI GAMDOOR SINGH ,MANSA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- 1 (5), MANSA

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

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

section 68 are not applicable as the assessee appellant has made re- payment of loan taken from the bank against limit. As such addition of Rs. 9,10,000/- confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) is unjustified and bad in law. The same be deleted. 3 I.T.A. No. 149/Asr/2023 Gamdoor Singh v. ITO 6. That the appellant craves