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

35,242 10,38,81,637 Cash Deposit 4,31,25,914 5,98,60,500 Percentage of cash sales 81.16% 57.62% h) It is further submitted that the A.O. has invoked the provisions of 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

35 to 36. The same reply was submitted before the ld. PCIT in relation to the notice u/s 263 which is annexed in APB pages 60 to 67. Also, the e-Proceedings Response Acknowledgment is annexed in APB page no. 62 to 63. 4.3 The ld. Counsel in argument further mentioned the relevant paragraph of the order of ld. PCIT

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

35,57,500/-, received by assessee society, from identified persons, were anonymous donations, liable to tax under section 115BBC. 2. That having held so, the ld. CIT(A), grossly misconstrued the relevant provisions of law, to hold that the impugned corpus donation, once held to be taxable U/S.115BBC, was still to 3 Sant Baba Bhag Singh M. C. Society

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 the Act. The further submitted that the authorities below did not appreciate that the maximum peak in the bank comes to Rs. 35

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

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

SHRIMATI MEERA AGGARWAL,JALANDHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE- 2, JALANDHAR

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

35,000/- in the bank account of the assessee under Section 68, has to fail, for the very reason

SHRI NASIR AHMED RANGSHU,ANANTNAG vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, SRINAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

35,000/- was from his business and the rest was from personal savings of mother. During the assessment proceedings, the assessee ascribed the entire cash to be as per his books of accounts. During the course of appellate proceedings, the assessee was asked to explain the reason for differing statements in response to which he stated that after sudden seizure

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

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

68 of proving the cash credit were satisfied by the assessee the addition should have been deleted rather than upholding the same u/s 56(1)(vii) of the Act. 4 That even otherwise on facts too, the CIT(A) has erred in holding that the Gift to the daughter by his father during the year which came from the Bank

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

68 of proving the cash credit were satisfied by the assessee the addition should have been deleted rather than upholding the same u/s 56(1)(vii) of the Act. 4 That even otherwise on facts too, the CIT(A) has erred in holding that the Gift to the daughter by his father during the year which came from the Bank

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

68 of proving the cash credit were satisfied by the assessee the addition should have been deleted rather than upholding the same u/s 56(1)(vii) of the Act. 4 That even otherwise on facts too, the CIT(A) has erred in holding that the Gift to the daughter by his father during the year which came from the Bank

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

35,000/- (iv) Sh. Manzoor Ahmed Khan Rs.29,50,525/- (actual figure is 29,50,225) 6 Kiran Mahajan v. ITO Similarly, the worthy CIT(A) was wrong in confirming the addition without any rhyme & reason and without applying his mind. 7. That alternatively the addition made is very high & excessive.’ Further, the assessee, vide her application dated 07.11.2017, prayed

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 the Hon’ble Court held that: “the opinion of the AO that the explanation furnished by the assessee as not satisfactory is required to be based on proper appreciation of materials and other attending circumstances available on record. The opinion of the Assessing Officer is required to be formed objectively with reference

AMIT SHARMA,BASTI NAU, JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Krinwant Sahay

68 or section 69 or section 69A or section 69B or section 69C or section 69D the rate of tax applicable is 60% on such income. Admittedly, the income offered by the appellant was for the AY 2017-18 for which the rate of tax applicable is 60%. Therefore, the AO has rightly charged

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

H. N. AGRI SERVICE PRIVATE LIMITED,SRINAGAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAMMU

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

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

section 68 of the Income- tax Act, 1961 to the same. We delete the sustained addition of Rs. 15,42,000.” 4. Lalchand Bhagat AmbicaRamVs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 288 (SC) The relevant paragraph of the Hon’able Apex Court respectfully is reproduced as follows: - “A decision of the Allahabad High Court reported in Kanpur Steel

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAMMU vs. M/S HN AGRI SERVE PRIVATE LIMITED, SRINAGAR

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

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

section 68 of the Income- tax Act, 1961 to the same. We delete the sustained addition of Rs. 15,42,000.” 4. Lalchand Bhagat AmbicaRamVs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 288 (SC) The relevant paragraph of the Hon’able Apex Court respectfully is reproduced as follows: - “A decision of the Allahabad High Court reported in Kanpur Steel

SATIA INDUSTRIES LIMITED,MUKTSAR, PUNJAB vs. DCIT, ACIT CIRCLE 1, BATHINDA

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Udayan Das Gupta & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 527/Asr/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2020-21

35,68,26,820/- by applying 63.79% of total cost incurred. That the DRP has erred in rejecting the value o' power considered by the assessee on the basis TNM method at Rs 47,97,24,111/-and confirming addition of Rs 12,28,97,957/-. 6. The AO on the directions of DRP had erred both in fact