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 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

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

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

SHRI MOHD MANZOOR,RAJOURI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -2 (3), JAMMU

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

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

263 [1980] (Punj. &Har.) "Income from undisclosed sources—Unexplained investment— Amount disclosed by HUF under Voluntary Disclosure Scheme— Thereafter kept lying in assessee's house with his wife till her death— ITO questioning its source after the same had subsequently been deposited with a bank in the names of assessee's then major daughters—In the absence of any evidence

M/S. PUNJAB IRON & STEEL COMPANY LIMITED,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is allowed

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

68 of the Act. 3. Aggrieved from the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A)-5, Ludhiana. During the course of appellate proceedings, the assessee filed additional evidence u/s 46A of the Act. The appeal of the assessee was dismissed vide order dated 28.04.2014 and admission of additional evidence filed was rejected. The assessee filed appeal

BALWINDER SINGH,MOGA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, MOGA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

68 or 694, excess stock is covered u/s 69 or 698, construction of Shed/Godown is covered u/s 698 or 69C and advances made to Sundry Parties is covered uls 69, 698 or 690 is like an open ended hypothesis which is not supported by any specific finding that the matter shall fall under which of the specific sections

SH. YASH PAUL KHANNA PROP.,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JALANDHAR

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

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

section quoted by the AO is 143(3) dated 03.02.2006, we find from records that in this case the original assessment was framed on 23.02.2024, u/s 143(3) on a total income of Rs.1,35,690/- (as against return income of Rs.1,06,150/- ), which has been subsequently set aside by the ld. CIT, Jalandhar-II, by invoking