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 and 133, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Method of accounting - Estimation of income (Discrepancy in receipts as shown in 26AS) - Assessment year 2013-14 - Case of assessee-contractor was selected for scrutiny through CASS due to difference in turnover between Form 26AS and books of account - Assessing Officer completed assessment in case of assessee company by making various

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

section 68 was to be deleted.” I.T.A. No.117/Asr/2022 25 Assessment Year: 2017-18 2ND ISSUE AMOUNT RAISED THROUGH UNSECURED LOAN:- 5. Next issue is related to the amount raise through unsecured loan. The ld. Counsel further argued that both in assessing authority and before the Revisional Authority the assessee has submitted the details related to the loan creditors

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

section 115BBC cannot apply. 3.11 In view of the fore-going (including the preceding paragraphs), in our opinion, the Revenue has successfully impugned the transaction/s, stated as a donation/s, as a genuine transaction/s (also see para 4), so that it is liable to be taxed u/s. 115BBC and, in any case, u/s. 115BBE. We decide accordingly. 4. Finally

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

27 (Gujarat) dated 05.07.2022. INCOME TAX : Where assessee took loan from two parties and assessee had furnished requisite material showing identity of loan givers and that assessee was not beneficiary as loan was repaid in subsequent year, no addition under section 68

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

27 (Gujarat) dated 05.07.2022. INCOME TAX : Where assessee took loan from two parties and assessee had furnished requisite material showing identity of loan givers and that assessee was not beneficiary as loan was repaid in subsequent year, no addition under section 68

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

section 68 while seeking the assessee’s explanation as to nature and source of receipt of money, is to no moment. The principle is in fact well-settled. Reference in this context may be made to the decision in P.K.Palanisamy vs. N. Arumugham & Anr. (arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 2308 of 2009, dated July 23, 2009), wherein

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 - Whether Tribunal had rightly concluded that there was no merit in appeal against Commissioner (Appeals) order - Held, yes [Para 4] [In favour of assessee]” 15. Recently, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of PCIT v. Dipansu Mohapatra [2024] 160 taxmann.com 289 (SC) dismissed against order of High Court that where assessee provided all details of purchase

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 - Whether Tribunal had rightly concluded that there was no merit in appeal against Commissioner (Appeals) order - Held, yes [Para 4] [In favour of assessee]” 15. Recently, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of PCIT v. Dipansu Mohapatra [2024] 160 taxmann.com 289 (SC) dismissed against order of High Court that where assessee provided all details of purchase

HIMALYA SPINNING MILLS,AMRITSAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- 2 (1), AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

27,00,000 /- u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and also confirming invoking OF provisions of Section

THE ASSISATANT COMMISSIOENR OF INCOME-TAX,, HOSHIARPUR vs. SH. MANINDER SINGH CHEEMA, HOSHIARPUR

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

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 719/Asr/2013 Assessment Year: 2007-08

27-30, 34-36). The deponents were called for being produced by the AO, i.e., as assessee’s witnesses. Except for Dalwinder Singh (serial no. 6), the other five were produced and deposed before the AO, confirming to have received back the deposit, which was stated to be out of personal savings, through Raj Sher Singh. None of them, however

M/S. RAJ DEV ,KOTKAPURA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, FARIDKOT

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

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

section 68 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act. 4. Aggrieved by the assessment order of the AO, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A) and the Worthy CIT(A) passed the appellate order dated 31.01.2023 u/s 250 of the Act wherein, the appeal of the assessee was dismissed by observing that the AO has given his clear finding that

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

section 133A of the Act, with reference to the books of accounts, and that the disputed amount has been surrendered as undisclosed income of the appellant over and above the regular business income. 7. We have heard both the sides, perused the record, impugned orders and case law cited before us. Admittedly, the appellant had made the surrender

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

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

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

ABDUL HAFIZ,UDHAMPUR vs. D.C.I.T, CIRCLE-2, JAMMU

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 465/(Asr)/2017 Assessment Year: 2013-14

section 68 would not apply where, as observed by the Assessing Officer (AO), the impugned sum had not been found credited in his books of account, is rendered of no consequence as, by own admission, the impugned sum stands credited in the assessee’s books of account (PB pg. 29). In fact, as explained by the ld. counsel

SMT. KIRAN MAHAJAN,JAMMU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2) JAMMU

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 319 & S.A. 15/(Asr)/2017 Assessment Year: 2012-13

27,60,620/- 5 Kiran Mahajan v. ITO 3. Sh. Abdul Rehman Baniya - Rs. 25,35,000/- 4. Sh. Manzoor Ahmad Khan - Rs. 29,50,525/- (actual figure is 29,50,225) The AO, therefore, has rightly added a sum of Rs.1,08,26,315/- as bogus sundry creditors. The addition made by the AO is thus, confirmed.’ [emphasis

HINDVEE SMALL FINANCE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 1(3) JAMMU, JAMMU

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

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Krinwant Sahay

section 68 of the Act 61, is legally not applicable , because in the instant case, there is no cash credit as such, because there is no increase in liability in this case because realization of “loans and advances”( principal amount) during the year will reduce the outstanding balance of “Long term loans and advances ”as reflected in the asset

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

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee is allowed

27 of the order u/s 263 ) and he relied on various judicial decisions\ncontained in the revision order u/s 263 of the Act dated 19/03/2024.\n18.\nThe Ld. AR of the assessee in rejoinder submitted that it is a settled law that\nthe provisions of section 263 can only be invoked where both the condition vis\n'prejudicial