M/S ACTIVE TOOLS (P). LIMITED,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -II, JALANDHAR

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

5 to the following effect was incorrect: - “Thus, in the absence of any explanation regarding the nature and source of the excess cash, investment in building and excess stock found, the same cannot be assessed as business income, rather it is squarely covered under the provisions of section 69/69A as unexplained income/investment not eligible for any deduction

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 was to be deleted.” I.T.A. No.117/Asr/2022 25 Assessment Year: 2017-18 2ND ISSUE AMOUNT RAISED THROUGH UNSECURED LOAN:- 5. Next issue is related to the amount raise through unsecured loan. The ld. Counsel further argued that both in assessing authority and before the Revisional Authority the assessee has submitted the details related to the loan creditors

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

5 Bombay High It is fairly well settled that when money is deposited in Court a bank, the relationship that is constituted between the banker and the customer is one of debtor and creditor Commissioner and not of trustee and beneficiary. Applying this Of Income-Tax, principle, the pass book supplied by the bank to its vs Bhaichand H. constituent

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)

5)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and it will go wrong to allege that the SGPC was constituted for the benefit of a particular religion. 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

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JAMMU vs. M/S FIL INDUSTRIES,, SRINAGAR

In the result appeal of the assessee ground no 4 to 4

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

43(1), read with Explanation 10 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Actual cost (Subsidy) - Assessment year 2007-08 - Assessee was engaged in business of production of cement, received sales tax subsidy under a scheme of Government -Whether sales tax incentive was capital in nature as very scheme under which subsidy was received was for incurring expenditure for installation

M/S FIL INDUSTRIES LTD,SRINAGAR vs. THE DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SRINAGAR

In the result appeal of the assessee ground no 4 to 4

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

43(1), read with Explanation 10 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Actual cost (Subsidy) - Assessment year 2007-08 - Assessee was engaged in business of production of cement, received sales tax subsidy under a scheme of Government -Whether sales tax incentive was capital in nature as very scheme under which subsidy was received was for incurring expenditure for installation

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JAMMU vs. M/S FILL INDUSTRIES,, SRINAGAR

In the result appeal of the assessee ground no 4 to 4

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

43(1), read with Explanation 10 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Actual cost (Subsidy) - Assessment year 2007-08 - Assessee was engaged in business of production of cement, received sales tax subsidy under a scheme of Government -Whether sales tax incentive was capital in nature as very scheme under which subsidy was received was for incurring expenditure for installation

M/S FIL INDUSTRIES LTD,SRINAGAR vs. THE ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SRINAGAR

In the result appeal of the assessee ground no 4 to 4

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

43(1), read with Explanation 10 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Actual cost (Subsidy) - Assessment year 2007-08 - Assessee was engaged in business of production of cement, received sales tax subsidy under a scheme of Government -Whether sales tax incentive was capital in nature as very scheme under which subsidy was received was for incurring expenditure for installation

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JAMMU vs. M/S FILL INDUSTRIES,, SRINAGAR

In the result appeal of the assessee ground no 4 to 4

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

43(1), read with Explanation 10 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Actual cost (Subsidy) - Assessment year 2007-08 - Assessee was engaged in business of production of cement, received sales tax subsidy under a scheme of Government -Whether sales tax incentive was capital in nature as very scheme under which subsidy was received was for incurring expenditure for installation

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JAMMU vs. M/S FILL INDUSTRIES,, SRINAGAR

In the result appeal of the assessee ground no 4 to 4

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

43(1), read with Explanation 10 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Actual cost (Subsidy) - Assessment year 2007-08 - Assessee was engaged in business of production of cement, received sales tax subsidy under a scheme of Government -Whether sales tax incentive was capital in nature as very scheme under which subsidy was received was for incurring expenditure for installation

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JAMMU vs. M/S FIL INDUSTRIES,, SRINAGAR

In the result appeal of the assessee ground no 4 to 4

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

43(1), read with Explanation 10 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Actual cost (Subsidy) - Assessment year 2007-08 - Assessee was engaged in business of production of cement, received sales tax subsidy under a scheme of Government -Whether sales tax incentive was capital in nature as very scheme under which subsidy was received was for incurring expenditure for installation

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMMU vs. M/S. FIL INDUSTRIES LTD, SRINAGAR

In the result appeal of the assessee ground no 4 to 4

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

43(1), read with Explanation 10 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Actual cost (Subsidy) - Assessment year 2007-08 - Assessee was engaged in business of production of cement, received sales tax subsidy under a scheme of Government -Whether sales tax incentive was capital in nature as very scheme under which subsidy was received was for incurring expenditure for installation

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JAMMU vs. M/S FIL INDUSTRIES,, SRINAGAR

In the result appeal of the assessee ground no 4 to 4

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

43(1), read with Explanation 10 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Actual cost (Subsidy) - Assessment year 2007-08 - Assessee was engaged in business of production of cement, received sales tax subsidy under a scheme of Government -Whether sales tax incentive was capital in nature as very scheme under which subsidy was received was for incurring expenditure for installation

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMMU vs. M/S. FIL INDUSTRIES LTD, SRINAGAR

In the result appeal of the assessee ground no 4 to 4

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

43(1), read with Explanation 10 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Actual cost (Subsidy) - Assessment year 2007-08 - Assessee was engaged in business of production of cement, received sales tax subsidy under a scheme of Government -Whether sales tax incentive was capital in nature as very scheme under which subsidy was received was for incurring expenditure for installation

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

43,99,885/- made by the A.O. u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. He failed to appreciate that when all the ingredients of section 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

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

43,99,885/- made by the A.O. u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. He failed to appreciate that when all the ingredients of section 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

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

43,99,885/- made by the A.O. u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. He failed to appreciate that when all the ingredients of section 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

SHRI JASHANDEEP SINGH SIDHU,BATHINDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(3), BATHINDA

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

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

section 68 of the Act cannot apply to bank statement etc. which makes the addition as bad in law. 8. That the ld. CIT(A) erred on facts and law in confirming the ex- parte assessment orders passed by the ld. AO u/s. 144 dated 27.12.2017 in violation of principles of natural justice because neither notice

SHRI JASHANDEEP SINGH SIDHU,BATHINDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- 1 (3), BATHINDA

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

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

section 68 of the Act cannot apply to bank statement etc. which makes the addition as bad in law. 8. That the ld. CIT(A) erred on facts and law in confirming the ex- parte assessment orders passed by the ld. AO u/s. 144 dated 27.12.2017 in violation of principles of natural justice because neither notice