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

section 68 of the Act was totally unjustified. That due to this addition the A.O. has resulted in unrealistic net profit rate i.e; 28

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 in hands of assessee was unjustified - Held, yes [In favour of assessee] I.T.A. No.117/Asr/2022 28 Assessment Year

SH. FARUKH JEHAN ZEB ,SRINAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, ANANT NAG

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

68,72,524.00. b. As per the appellant Account No. 0334CD901, as mentioned does not belong to the Appellant. Bank certificate attached as proof at page no. 28. c. Since the Case (Alleged Scam) is sub-judice, the appellant should not be treated as Convict rather than Suspect. Moreover, since the appellant was an individual without any government approved powers

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 is added, so as to provide that the nature and source of any sum, whether in the form of loan or borrowing, or any other liability credited in the books of an assessee shall be treated as explained only if the source of funds is also explained in the hands of the creditor or entry provider. However

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 is added, so as to provide that the nature and source of any sum, whether in the form of loan or borrowing, or any other liability credited in the books of an assessee shall be treated as explained only if the source of funds is also explained in the hands of the creditor or entry provider. 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

68 of the Act of Rs. 28,50,000/- as unexplained money and assessed the total income of the assessee at Rs. 28,50,000/- under section

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

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

68,63,820/- after including the surrendered income of Rs. 39,99,973/- as Income from Business as was declared during the course of Survey u/s 133A of the Act. However, the Ld. AO without appreciating the facts invoked the provisions of Section 115BBE of the Act and taxed the same @ 60 per cent. The assessment was framed with

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

28,99,550/- 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

28,99,550/- 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

28,99,550/- 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

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

section 69, 69A, etc. can in fact be invoked only where the Revenue discharges the primary onus on it to show the assessee to be owner of the relevant asset. As explained in Chuharmal v. CIT [1988] 172 ITR 250 (SC), the same seek to provide statutory recognition to the principles of common law jurisprudence as enshrined

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

SHRI OM PARKASH LEGAL HEIAR SMT PUSHPA VERMA,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(3), JALANDHAR

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A. No. 756/Asr/2017 Assessment Year: 2014-15

section 41(1)(a) arising, where so, only in respect of an actual liability, or one considered as so. That is, are consistent, rather than contrary. Could, one may ask, a purchase possibly be allowed as a deduction where the same does not result, simultaneously, in a liability there-against, to be met either in cash or in kind

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

28,01,205/- as unexplained source of repayment in the bank ignoring the cash flow statement. The Ld. AR further argued that the disputed amounts were deposited in the appellant’s loan account, then how would addition can be made under section 68

SHRI JASBIR SINGH ,AMRITSAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, AMRITSAR

In the result, appeal of the assesseeITA No

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No. 133/Asr/2022 Assessment Year: 2019-20

28,719/- is being accepted. Thus, the assessee has failed to explain source of Opening stock credited in Books of account to the extent of Rs.27i20,300/-. The same is considered as unexplained as per provisions of Section 68

NEERAJ KUMAR SETHI,DELHI vs. ITO, NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE (NFAC)

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

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

section 68 are not applicable to the facts of the case. 6. That the order is bad in law and on facts. 7. That the appellant craves leave to add or amend the ground of appeal before the appeal is heard and disposed off.” 3 I.T.A. No. 9/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-15 3. Thereafter, the assessee has preferred