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

34 Assessment Year: 2017-18 of account. Therefore, the making of addition on account of deposit of cash which was duly accounted for in the books of account was against the facts and circumstances of the case. The reliance was placed on the following case laws: Sr. Citation Brief No 1. [2016] 73 Section 69B, read with section

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 of the Income Tax Act as the appellant has not given any explanation on the source of the deposits of Rs.99,69,395/-. 7. We have heard the rival contentions, perused the material on record, impugned order, written submission and case law cited before us. Admittedly, the appellant has not filed return of income for the assessment year under

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

sections 69B to 69D), are also rules of evidence, so that where the assessee fails to satisfactorily prove the credit (or investment, money, expenditure, etc.), the same is liable to be deemed as his income for the relevant year, i.e., on his failing to satisfactorily explain the nature and source thereof. Why, the Apex Court approved and confirmed

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

SH. DIDAR SINGH S/O SH. PREM SINGH,KAPURTHALA vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KAPURTHALA

In the result, the assessee succeeds

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N.K.Choudhryita No.542(Asr)/2016 Assessment Year:2008-09

68 cannot be sustained. Further, it was also submitted that ITO has not given any warning to the assessee/appellant herein before putting question to the assessee/appellant to the effect that any admission/confession can be used against him in any proceedings under the Act and its repercussion and, nor he was made aware of his right to engage lawyer

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

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

section 68 cannot be invoked. The explanation of the same as representing earnest money, it needs to be appreciated, is an explanation toward the ‘nature’ of the credit, which, along with ‘source’, is to be satisfactorily explained, i.e., established on the parameters of identity and creditworthiness (of the creditor) and the genuineness (of the transaction), as is well settled

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

section 68. In all these cases it was held that no addition can be made in the hands of the assessee, if there is no incriminating ITA 728-731/Amr/2019 19 document found during the course of search pertaining to the year under consideration. In fact all the documents pertained to AY 2017-18, none was pertaining

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

section 68. In all these cases it was held that no addition can be made in the hands of the assessee, if there is no incriminating ITA 728-731/Amr/2019 19 document found during the course of search pertaining to the year under consideration. In fact all the documents pertained to AY 2017-18, none was pertaining

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

section 68. In all these cases it was held that no addition can be made in the hands of the assessee, if there is no incriminating ITA 728-731/Amr/2019 19 document found during the course of search pertaining to the year under consideration. In fact all the documents pertained to AY 2017-18, none was pertaining

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

PUNEET SAHDEV,JAMMU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAMMU

Bench: Shri L. P. Sahu & Shri Ravish Sood

68 and the addition made is unjustified and unwarranted on the facts and circumstances of the case. Similarly, the worthy CIT(A) has also erred in confirming the same without appreciating the facts on record and arguments which took place during the course of hearing of appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). In view of these circumstances, the addition confirmed

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAMMU vs. SH. PUNEET SEHDEV, PROP., JAMMU

Bench: Shri L. P. Sahu & Shri Ravish Sood

68 and the addition made is unjustified and unwarranted on the facts and circumstances of the case. Similarly, the worthy CIT(A) has also erred in confirming the same without appreciating the facts on record and arguments which took place during the course of hearing of appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). In view of these circumstances, the addition confirmed

SH. PUNEET SEHDEV PROP;,JAMMU vs. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER,, JAMMU

Bench: Shri L. P. Sahu & Shri Ravish Sood

68 and the addition made is unjustified and unwarranted on the facts and circumstances of the case. Similarly, the worthy CIT(A) has also erred in confirming the same without appreciating the facts on record and arguments which took place during the course of hearing of appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). In view of these circumstances, the addition confirmed

SH. PUNEET SEHDEV PROP,JAMMU vs. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, JAMMU

Bench: Shri L. P. Sahu & Shri Ravish Sood

68 and the addition made is unjustified and unwarranted on the facts and circumstances of the case. Similarly, the worthy CIT(A) has also erred in confirming the same without appreciating the facts on record and arguments which took place during the course of hearing of appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). In view of these circumstances, the addition confirmed

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