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

42 Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Cash credits taxmann. com [Rejection of books of account, effect

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

68-74). AELPG5810P I.T.A. No.117/Asr/2022 15 Assessment Year: 2017-18 2. The PCIT was also apprised with the issue that the investment made by the partner has duly been verified by the respective assessing officer vide questionnaire dated 09.12.2019 for AY 2017-18 [Refer Page no. 75-77]. The relevant question raised by the assessing officer in the questionnaire (Relevant

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, 69 to 69D of the Act to create a deeming fiction to tax any sum already credited / offered as income. Such recourse is unwarranted within the objectives to introduce this section 115BBE of the Act. The objects and reasons for amending the section 115BBE by the Taxation Laws (Second Amendment) Bill, 2016 was to prevent misuse

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

HIMALYA SPINNING MILLS,AMRITSAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- 2 (1), AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

Section 68 of the Income Tax Act,1961. The parawise observation of Worthy CIT(A) with submissions of the appellant are as under ; Para Observations of CIT (A)/AO’s observation Submissions No of (reproduced) CIT(A)’s order 3.3 To verify the cash sale, the assessee was The appellant provided asked to produce complete books of stock detail/tally

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)

42. Our views mentioned above are supported by the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of DawoodiBoharaJamat [2014]43 taxmann.com 243 (SC). The said decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court had been relied upon by the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the matter of Christian Medical College [2015] 61 taxmann.com 68

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

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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3, AMRITSAR vs. SHRIMATI RAJ RANI ARORA, AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeal of the department is dismissed

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

section 68 of the act are satisfied with regard to loan*'of Rs 1,00,00,000/- received by the appellant from Sh. Amandeep Singh in the year under consideration and no addition of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- is called for u/s 68 of the act in respect of loan from Sh. Amandeep Singh and the same

SHRI SAMREEN SHAFI,SRINAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, SRINAGAR

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

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

section 44AD, when the said transactions were duly recorded in books of accounts and income earned from these transactions stands declared voluntary in the ITR filed under PAN-AHCPS0377H 5. The assessment is based on mere presumptions and conjectures. I.T.A. No.67/Asr/2023 3 Assessment Year: 2017-18 6. Assessee craves right to add, alter or modify any grounds) [of appeal

ASSIATANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX PHAGWARA CIRCLE, PHAGWARA vs. SHRI HARMESH KUMAR, PHILLAUR

In the result, these appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

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

42,68,500/‐ on 31.03.2016. During the course of survey, assessee offered additional income amounting to Rs. 5.00 Crore, but later on at the time of filing return of income, assessee considered all the material & documents impounded during survey and declared his true and Chuni Lal Gaba v. Asstt. CIT& Ors correct income in his return of income. The disclosure

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PHAGWARA CIRCLE, PHAGWARA vs. SHRI CHUNI LAL, PHILLAUR

In the result, these appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

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

42,68,500/‐ on 31.03.2016. During the course of survey, assessee offered additional income amounting to Rs. 5.00 Crore, but later on at the time of filing return of income, assessee considered all the material & documents impounded during survey and declared his true and Chuni Lal Gaba v. Asstt. CIT& Ors correct income in his return of income. The disclosure

SHRI ONKAR SINGH ,HOSHIARPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3, HOSHIARPUR

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

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

section 68 of the Act is illegal, unjustified and unwarranted by the facts of the case, because the Assessee is an agriculturist and is not maintaining books of A/c. 3. That the AO has not found credit in the books of the Assessee and saving A/c maintained by the Assessee cannot be treated as books of A/c as such

SHRI ONKAR SINGH,HOSHIARPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3, HOSHIARPUR

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

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

section 68 of the Act is illegal, unjustified and unwarranted by the facts of the case, because the Assessee is an agriculturist and is not maintaining books of A/c. 3. That the AO has not found credit in the books of the Assessee and saving A/c maintained by the Assessee cannot be treated as books of A/c as such

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, SAMBA vs. SH. ASHOK KUMAR SHARMA, SAMBA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in Ground nos

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No.475/Asr/2016 Assessment Year: 2013-14

42. The ld. AO on the basis of infirmities noted down in Form 10CCB I.T.A. No.475/Asr/2016 12 Assessment Year: 2013-14 with respect to DIC certificate. As per DIC certificate, placed on page No.59 of the Paper book, the date of permanent registration is 9/2009 whereas the auditor has taken the date of commencement in Form No.10CCB as 16.11.2009, which

SHRI DARPAN JAIN,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX WARD - 1(1), JALANDHAR

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

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

42,244.73 on account of interest to Bank, The assessee had made non- commercial advance of Rs 45,00.000.00 to his wife for purchase of immovable property, The utilization of borrowed funds for non business purposes attracts disallowance of interest claimed as expenditure. Hence Addition of Rs.360000.00 (Rs 45 Lakhs x 10% x 8/12) towards disallowance of interest were made

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 260A, the following be subscribed:(emphasis,supplied)’ 4. In para 4.7 (in sub-para 3, beginning with the words ‘The extension of a loan/advance carries with it…….’), the following sentence at page 23: ‘When the factor of repayment of loan and advance itself is not relevant, how could the retention period, i.e., the period after which the repayment

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

42 A.Y.2015-16 sale and variance in the value of building as reported in the financial statements and in the Income Tax Act, all were duly replied to. The assessee had, therefore, justified the transaction qualifying as slump sale as per the provisions of the Act by the Business Transfer Agreement entered into, so also the sale consideration received

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