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 68 f the income tax act 1961 which is reproduced hereunder: - Cash credits. 47 68. 48Where any sum is found credited in the books49of an assessee maintained for any previous year, and the assessee offers no explanation49 about the nature and source thereof or the explanation offered by him is not, in the opinion of the 50

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

68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - (Chandigarh - Trib.) IN THE Cash credit (Bank deposits) - Assessment ITAT CHANDIGARH year 2008-09 - Assessee made deposits of BENCH 'A' certain sum in bank account - He made various withdrawals from bank account - Gurpreet Singh Assessing Officer in assessment order had v. Income-tax Officer* given a list of cash deposits in bank account

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"

68 of the Act. Without prejudice to the above, the AO further observed that if at any stage in the appellate proceedings, the higher judicial authorities, hold that the cash deposits as explained, and cash is actually belongs to the company, then the payment to be examined in the light of provisions of section

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

50 ITR 1 (SC) [1977] 107 ITR (SC) The Delhi High Court in C1T v. Oasis Hospitalities Pvt. Ltd. 5, held that: “The initial onus is upon the assessee to establish three things necessary to obviate the mischief of Section 68

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

sections 69B to 69D), are also rules of evidence, so that where the assessee fails to satisfactorily prove the credit (or investment, money, expenditure, etc.), the same is liable to be deemed as his income for the relevant year, i.e., on his failing to satisfactorily explain the nature and source thereof. Why, the Apex Court approved and confirmed

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

68 of the Act of Rs. 28,50,000/- as unexplained money and assessed the total income of the assessee at Rs. 28,50,000/- under section

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

68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. That the AO has totally overlooked the facts and circumstances of the case and resorted to bald addition. 3. That the appellant craves leave to add/amend any ground of appeal at the time of hearing.” Farooq Ahmad Ahangar v. ITO ITA No. 606/Asr/2018 (Assessment Year 2009-10): 4. Briefly, the facts

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

68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. That the AO has totally overlooked the facts and circumstances of the case and resorted to bald addition. 3. That the appellant craves leave to add/amend any ground of appeal at the time of hearing.” Farooq Ahmad Ahangar v. ITO ITA No. 606/Asr/2018 (Assessment Year 2009-10): 4. Briefly, the facts

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

68 makes addition , which is in the books of accounts,, and appellate cannot prove source of credit, while as section 69A makes additions which is out of books of accounts. Therefore this judgment is not applicable in the instant case. Regarding the issue of taking support from M/s Me Dowell & Co. Ltd. The said judgment has no relevance with

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

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

50,000/- were to be considered to have been generated from her business activities i.e. providing of tuitions, while for the balance amount of Rs. 2,35,000/- was to be treated as cash deposits from unexplained sources. As such, the CIT(A) sustained the addition under Sec. 68 to the extent of Rs. 2,35,000/-, and concurred with

THE ASSISATANT COMMISSIOENR OF INCOME-TAX,, HOSHIARPUR vs. SH. MANINDER SINGH CHEEMA, HOSHIARPUR

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 719/Asr/2013 Assessment Year: 2007-08

section 68 cannot be invoked. The explanation of the same as representing earnest money, it needs to be appreciated, is an explanation toward the ‘nature’ of the credit, which, along with ‘source’, is to be satisfactorily explained, i.e., established on the parameters of identity and creditworthiness (of the creditor) and the genuineness (of the transaction), as is well settled

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

68 of the Act were incorrectly invoked in the present case to make the impugned addition of Rs.50,90,194/-. In fact under these provisions, the additions are warranted on account of the un-explained cash credits only, whereas in the present case it is a case of acquisition of un-explained money within the meaning of section

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

Section 69/ 69A of the Act. 4. Assessee being agreed with the assessment order, filed appeal before the learned CIT appeal who has confirmed the finding of the assessing officer by observing as under: “5.1 Ground of Appeal No. 1: This ground relates to charging of AO of the surrendered income

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. Copy of the decision is enclosed at page no. 91. The view of the Delhi High Court in this case has been endorsed by the Supreme Court as the SLP of the revenue was dismissed and stands reported at 380 ITR 64 (Statute). Copy of the order is enclosed at page no. 92. In view of the fact 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. Copy of the decision is enclosed at page no. 91. The view of the Delhi High Court in this case has been endorsed by the Supreme Court as the SLP of the revenue was dismissed and stands reported at 380 ITR 64 (Statute). Copy of the order is enclosed at page no. 92. In view of the fact 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. Copy of the decision is enclosed at page no. 91. The view of the Delhi High Court in this case has been endorsed by the Supreme Court as the SLP of the revenue was dismissed and stands reported at 380 ITR 64 (Statute). Copy of the order is enclosed at page no. 92. In view of the fact that

SHRI MANMOHAN SINGH KAPUR,HOSHIARPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, JALANDHAR

In the result, appeal of the assessees in ITA Nos

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

50,000/-). The explanation offered by the assessee was not substantiated in any manner by the assessee as is required under the provisions of section 68

SHRI SUKHJIT SINGH,HOSHIARPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, JALANDHAR

In the result, appeal of the assessees in ITA Nos

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

50,000/-). The explanation offered by the assessee was not substantiated in any manner by the assessee as is required under the provisions of section 68

SMT HARNEET KAUR JUNEJA,JALANDHAR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1, JALANDHAR

In the result, appeal of the assessees in ITA Nos

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

50,000/-). The explanation offered by the assessee was not substantiated in any manner by the assessee as is required under the provisions of section 68