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 can be made where books of account had been rejected by the AO u/s 145(3) and again relying upon the same books of accounts for the purpose of section

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, AMRITSAR. vs. SH. SHIV RAJ SINGH BAWA, AMRITSAR.

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is allowed and the assessee’s CO, dismissed

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 407/Asr/2016 Assessment Year: 2012-13

section 40A(3) and, thus, disallowance there-under, could only be effected in the hands of the Association of Persons (AOP) consisting of the assessee and the other purchasers (owners) of the subject land. Relying upon ITO v. Ch. Attchaiah [1996] 218 ITR 239 (SC), it was stated that the law does not give the assessing authority the option

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

3 Sant Baba Bhag Singh M. C. Society v. Dy. CIT suffer further special rate of tax under section 115BBE read with section 68

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, assessee has to explain three conditions, namely, identity of creditor; Tax Officer genuineness of transaction; and credit worthiness of creditor - Held, yes - Assessee individual had taken unsecured loan of certain amount from one ST - Assessing Officer 24(3

DR. HARPRIT SINGH ,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, JALANDHAR

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.195/Asr/2018 िनधा"रणवष"/A.Y.:2011-12 िनधा"रणवष" िनधा"रणवष" िनधा"रणवष" Dr. Harprit Singh, C/O M/S. Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Orthonova Hospital, Near Nari Income-Tax, Niketan, Nakoddar Road, Central Circle –Ii, Jalandhar Jalandhar(Pb) (Pb) Pan: Acmps 7237 F अपीलाथ"Appellant अपीलाथ" ""यथ"/Respondent ""यथ" अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" ""यथ" ""यथ"

68 of the Act. However, same was sustained by the CIT (A) under section 69 of the Act on the ground that investment are not recorded in books of accounts. Since the change of section, amounts to enhancement without giving opportunity of being heard the assessee, hence, no sustainable in law. 3

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

section applicable, if any, which also makes the assessment incomplete and bad in law. 3. The Ld. CIT (Appeals) before completion of the appellant proceedings had put reliance on the fact findings by the Ld. AO during the assessment proceedings, without analyzing the data himself. It is pertinent to mention here that the basis of suspicion (Alleged Scam

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 - Held, yes. 4. Deposits from unexplained sources addition u/s 68 - ROOPAK JAIN Held that: - The assessee does not maintain any books VERSUS ITO, WARD -48 (3

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

section 68 of synopsis reads as under: 3. Section 68 not applicable to business receipts recorded as sales

SH. SATISH KUMAR,JALANDHAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,, JALANDHAR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Ravish Soodita No.105/Asr./2017 (Assessment Years: 2008-09)

Section 68 of the Act. Therefore, on this count itself the impugned addition Rs.10,53,000/- deserves to be deleted.” We are of the considered view that as the bank account of an assessee cannot be held to be the ‘books’ of an assessee maintained for any previous year, thus no addition under Sec. 68

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 the creditors of the appellant assessee. 16. In view of above discussion, we hold that the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is infirm and perverse to the facts on record. Therefore, the impugned order of the CIT(A) passed u/s 250 of the Act is reversed and that Assessment order is sustained

SHIROMANI GURDWARA PARBANDHAK COMMITTEE vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I,

In the result the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenav.S. Cit – I Shirmoni Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee Amritsar Teja Singh Mundri Hall Sri Amritsar Pan:Aants1981K (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 80G(2)(B), the Central Government notifies places of public worship owing to their historical, archaeological, or artistic importance. The following Gurudwaras due to their historical importance have been notified u/s 80G(2)(B) by the Central Government. 1. Gurudwara Harminder Sahib, SO 1974, Dated 19.06.1965. 2. Gurudwara DukhNiwaran Sahib, SO 885, Dated 31.12.1975. 3. Gurudwara Shri Hemkunt

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

68 in respect of cash credit received from seven different lenders. 4. Aggrieved the order passed by the AO, the assessee filed an appeal before the First appellate authority, and the Worthy CIT(A) has given part relief to the assessee i.e. relief of Rs. 3,71,00,000/- against unsecured loan taken from 4 parties and upheld the addition

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

68 in respect of cash credit received from seven different lenders. 4. Aggrieved the order passed by the AO, the assessee filed an appeal before the First appellate authority, and the Worthy CIT(A) has given part relief to the assessee i.e. relief of Rs. 3,71,00,000/- against unsecured loan taken from 4 parties and upheld the addition

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

3) of the Act, the AO has estimated the income of te assessee as above. It is settled law that once books are rejected and income assessed by the AO on estimate basis, the provisions of section 68

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

3) of the Act, the AO has estimated the income of te assessee as above. It is settled law that once books are rejected and income assessed by the AO on estimate basis, the provisions of 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

68, leading to the impugned addition. The said section was, firstly, not applicable in-as-much as the assessee did not maintain any books of account. The addition is liable to be quashed on this score itself. Even on facts, no addition, it was contended, is called for as there is no basis to doubt the assessee’s explanation

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

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

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee is allowed

3), read with section 263, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and rule 6DD of\nIncome-tax Rules, 1962 - Business disallowance - Cash payment exceeding prescribed limit\n(Rule 6DD) - Assessment year 2013-14 - Assessee-company was engaged in business of\nmanufacturing of dairy products Assessee filed return and Assessing Officer passed\nassessment order after making certain additions - Principal Commissioner

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(2), JAMMU vs. SH. NEERAJ AGGARWAL , JAMMU

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

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 349/(Asr)/2017 Assessment Year: 2010-11

68,663/-, including fresh purchase for Rs.2.15 lacs during AY 2008-09. This needs to be explained, which was not. (g) the assessee’s turnover, at Rs.2733.91 lacs for the current year, up from a range of Rs.8-10 cr. for the preceding 3 years, falls to Rs.1.36 cr. for the following year, which in fact is found