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 145(3) on the ground that the I.T.A. No.195/Asr/2022 9 Assessment Year: 2017-18 assessee has not furnished the sales bills. That the addition of Rs 2,74,00,000/- was made u/s 68 of the Act on account of unexplained cash deposit and the same is taxed u/s 115BBE of the Act at the rate

MESERS G.G CONTINEENTAL TRADES PVT.LTD,BATHINDA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-I, BATHINDA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee bearing ITA No

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No.189/Asr/2018 Assessment Years: 2014-15

section 2(22)(e) of the Act is upheld. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. It is ordered accordingly.” 12.2 The ld. DR also relied on the order of assessee’s own case which is in favour of the revenue bearing ITA No. 508/Asr/2017, date of order 05.07.2019. page nos. 33 to 35. The relevant para is duly

MEASAGE G. G OILS & FATS PRIVATE LIMITED,BATHINDA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE- 1 , BATHINDA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee bearing ITA No

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No.189/Asr/2018 Assessment Years: 2014-15

section 2(22)(e) of the Act is upheld. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. It is ordered accordingly.” 12.2 The ld. DR also relied on the order of assessee’s own case which is in favour of the revenue bearing ITA No. 508/Asr/2017, date of order 05.07.2019. page nos. 33 to 35. The relevant para is duly

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

MAX FINANCIAL SERVICE LIMITED ,NAWANSHAHR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is therefore partly allowed

35 A.Y.2015-16 The consideration may be discharged in cash or by issuing shares of Transferor Company. (f) Possibility of identification of price attributable to individual items (plant, machinery and dead stock) which are sold as part of slump sale, may not entitle a transaction to be qualified as slump sale – CIT vs. Artex Manufacturing Co., [227 ITR 260 (SC)]. However

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

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

MESERS P.D SEKHSARIA TRADING COMPANY ,BATHINDA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, BATHINDA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the Stay Petition of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Sh. N. S. Saini & Sh. N. K. Choudhryita No. 331/Asr./2018 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 M/S P. D. Sekhsaria Trading Vs Dy. Commissioner Of Income Company Pvt. Ltd., 4242, Tax, Circle-I, Ground Floor, Gurudwara Singh Bathinda, Punjab Sabha Street, Bathinda, Punjab (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcp1720E Sa No. 03/Asr./2019 (In Ita No. 331/Asr./2018: Asstt. Year : 2014-15) M/S P. D. Sekhsaria Trading Vs Dy. Commissioner Of Income Company Pvt. Ltd., 4242, Tax, Circle-I, Ground Floor, Gurudwara Singh Bathinda, Punjab Sabha Street, Bathinda, Punjab (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcp1720E Assessee By : Shri. Salil Kapoor, Adv. & Shri. Sanat Kapoor, Adv. Revenue By : Shri. M. P. Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing :20.02.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.03.2019 Order Per N. S. Saini: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Cit(A), Bathinda Dated 26.03.2018. 2. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case The Addition/Disallowance Of Rs.4,69,47,808/- Made

2 of the Forward Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1952 (74 of 1952) and which fulfils such conditions as may be prescribed and is notified by the Central Government for this purpose:” 56. The contention of the Revenue is that though the provision was inserted w.e.f. assessment year 2014-15 but as the recognized association was notified by the notification dated

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

35,184/- and the Ld. CIT(A) has miserably failed to appreciate the same and he did not adjudicate the issue on merits. As such the addition made may be deleted. He has filed brief synopsis and a paper book, pages147. The relevant part on section 68 of synopsis reads as under: 3. Section 68 not applicable

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

2. That the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the amount of loan was received from the above said parties during the year under consideration through banking channels and the same was paid back through banking channels during the same year and, as such, the confirmation of addition as made by the Ld. CIT(A) is against

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

2. That the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the amount of loan was received from the above said parties during the year under consideration through banking channels and the same was paid back through banking channels during the same year and, as such, the confirmation of addition as made by the Ld. CIT(A) is against

M/S G G OILS & FATS PVT.LTD ,BATHINDA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BATHINDA

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi. T. A. No. 508/Asr/2017 Assessment Year: 2014-15

section 68 of the Act. The argument of the sum not representing ‘real income’, though not specifically advanced before us, is implicit in the argument advanced with reference to the genuineness of the loan/ advance, and therefore considered. The same would not carry the assessee’s case further, as would even otherwise be apparent from the host of decisions

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

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

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

2) There was no requirement to carry funds in the form of cash from Srinagar to Delhi. (3) The AO further observed that the assessee might have acquired the said funds from his undisclosed income/sources. (4) During pre-investigation stage, the assessee in his statement had stated that Rs. 8,35,000/- was from his business and the rest

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

MESERS SHRI SWAMI SHANKARNATH PARVAT CHARITABLE AND WELFARE TRUST ,KAPURTHALA vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the assessee appeal is allowed

Bench: Sh. Laliet Kumar & Dr. M. L. Meenai.T.A. No. 602/Asr/2018 Assessment Year: N.A.

68,816/- in F.Y: 2017/18. These are meager expenses. No adverse opinion has been drawn by him on this observation. It is submitted that Income & Expenditure Account for F.Y: 2016-17 appears at Page 20 of the Paper Book and for F.Y: 2017-18 at Page 23 of the Paper Book. The details of various expenses incurred by the Society