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

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

section 115BBE and no expenditure as well as other deductions were admissible to the Assessee. The Assessee was required to be declared minimum 15000000/- income out of which loss carried forward from previous year to the extent of Rs. 39,31,563/- required to be adjusted and balance Rs. ITA 260/Amr/2019 5 1,10,68

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

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

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

5 Sant Baba Bhag Singh M. C. Society v. Dy. CIT ‘Tax on income referred to in 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

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

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

section 68 of the Income Tax Act. 5 Farukh Ahmad Zeb v. ITO 4. Being aggrieved by the assessment

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

section 68 - Held, yes. 5 Bombay High It is fairly well settled that when money is deposited in Court

SH. SATISH KUMAR,JALANDHAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,, JALANDHAR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Ravish Soodita No.105/Asr./2017 (Assessment Years: 2008-09)

5 ITA No.105/Asr./2017 A.Y. 2008-09 Shri Satish Kumar Vs. Income Tax Officer by the Id. A.R as regards the addition of Rs.10,53,000/- which was made by the A.O under Section 68

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 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 I.T.A. No. 263/Asr/2022 Assessment Year: 2012-13 5 which was confirmed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals

DR. HARPRIT SINGH ,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Choudhry & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.संसंसंसं././././I.T.A No.195/Asr/2018 िनधा"रणवष"/A.Y.:2011-12 िनधा"रणवष" िनधा"रणवष" िनधा"रणवष" Dr. Harprit Singh, C/O M/S. Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Orthonova Hospital, Near Nari Income-Tax, Niketan, Nakoddar Road, Central Circle –Ii, Jalandhar Jalandhar(Pb) (Pb) Pan: Acmps 7237 F अपीलाथ"Appellant अपीलाथ" ""यथ"/Respondent ""यथ" अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" ""यथ" ""यथ"

5. Being, aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT (A). The assessee has reiterated the same submissions as made before the AO. It was argued that said account was reopened due to astrological reasons. The addition made under section 68was challenged on the ground that section 68

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, JAMMU vs. M/S MOHD ASRAF SHEIKH, JAMMU

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed

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

section 68 of the Act in the face of overwhelming evidence regarding the existence, credit worthiness and the 5

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

5. From the above, it is clear that the assessee has not discharged the primary burden cast upon it under section 68

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

5. From the above, it is clear that the assessee has not discharged the primary burden cast upon it under section 68

SHRI FAROOQ AHMAD AHANGAR,SRINAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFICER, WARD-3(1, SRINAGAR

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

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

5,72,590.00 u/s 68 14. of the Act of wages payable on the basis of not establishing identity of the parties and genuineness of the transactions. 15. The Appellant stated in the written submission that the addition is unjustified and against the law. Further the entire addition of Rs 572590.00 u/s 68 of the Act, is based on presumptions

SHRI FAROOQ AHMAD AHANGAR,SRINAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-3(1), SRINAGAR

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

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

5,72,590.00 u/s 68 14. of the Act of wages payable on the basis of not establishing identity of the parties and genuineness of the transactions. 15. The Appellant stated in the written submission that the addition is unjustified and against the law. Further the entire addition of Rs 572590.00 u/s 68 of the Act, is based on presumptions

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

68, leading to the impugned addition. The said section was, firstly, not applicable in-as-much as the assessee did not maintain any books of account. The addition is liable to be quashed on this score itself. Even on facts, no addition, it was contended, is called for as there is no basis to doubt the assessee’s explanation

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

5] [In favour of assessee]” 14. In another case of Principal Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Indravan Jain, HUF [2023] 156 taxmann.com 605 (Bombay) the Hon’ble HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY held as under- “section 68

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

5] [In favour of assessee]” 14. In another case of Principal Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Indravan Jain, HUF [2023] 156 taxmann.com 605 (Bombay) the Hon’ble HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY held as under- “section 68

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

5 Lacs 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