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

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

section 68 of the Act 61, is legally not applicable , because in the instant case, there is no cash credit as such, because there is no increase in liability in this case because realization of “loans and advances”( principal amount) during the year will reduce the outstanding balance of “Long term loans and advances ”as reflected in the asset

NEERAJ KUMAR SETHI,DELHI vs. ITO, NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE (NFAC)

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

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

section 68 whereas there was no sum found credited in books of assessee for which no explanation or unsatisfactory explanation was offered by Assessee. The above ground raised by the appellant is incorrect as the order has been passed correctly by following all the principles of natural justice. Hence, this ground is dismissed. 5.3 Ground No. 3-That

SHRI HARVINER SINGH ,PATHANKOT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-6(1), PATHANKOT

In the result, ground Nos

Bench: Shri L.P. Sahu, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.98/Asr/2018 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2013-2014) Shri Harvinder Singh Vs. Ito, Ward-6(1), Pathankot S/O Shri Sohan Singh, C/O M/S Janta Auto Trading Co. Dalhousie Road, Pathankot स्थायी ऱेखा सं./Panno. : Aceps 5287 R (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Tej Mohan Singh, Advocate & Shri Vaibhav Aggarwal, Ca राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Charan Dass, Dr

68 are not applicable in the instant case as there are no cash credits which are appearing in the books of account and as such application of wrong provisions of the Act not remotely connected is arbitrary and unjustified. 5. That the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) IS erroneous, arbitrary, opposed to law and facts

RANA IQBAL SINGH,V. DOSANJH KALAN, PHILLAUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, PHAGWARA

In the result, appeal of the Assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri Udayan Das Gupta & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 496/Asr/2024 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Rana Iqbal Singh, बनाम The Ito, Ward-1, Village Dosanjh Kalan, Assessment Unit, Tehsil Phillaur Delhi Distt. Jalandhar 144502 स्थधयी लेखध सं./Pan No: Ctops8735D अपीलधथी/Appellant प्रत्यथी/Respondent

54,000/- @ 2% per month is unexplained as per the provisions of section 68 of the Act ii). It was argued

MESERS GANESH RICE MILLS,MUKTSAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-II, BATHINDA

In the result the appeal of the assessee ITA No

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

section 115BBE for addition U/s 68. In argument the ld. Counsel has mentioned that the provisions of sec 68 of the Act are not at all applicable in the case of the Assessee. The amount of Rs. 15,54

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, FARIDKOT, BSNL BUILDING vs. M/S VOHRA SOLVEX PVT. LTD, SADIQ ROAD

In the result, C.O. filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Krinwant Sahay

54,912/-.” 6. Regarding the issue of reopening of assessment u/s 148 of the Act which has been challenged by the assesee before the ld. first appellate authority, the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the said grounds by observing as under: 7 I.T.A. No. 588/Asr/2024 & Ors Vohra Solvex Pvt Ltd. v. ITO & Ors “5.9 As highlighted in the various judgments

SHRI GURBINDER SINGH MAHAL,AMRITSAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-IV ( 2), AMRITSAR

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

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

Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Cash credit (Cash) - Assessment year 2009-10 - Where assessee submitted detailed cash summary showing inflow and outflow of cash for relevant year, in absence of any materials to show that cash withdrawn was utilized elsewhere by assessee, benefit of cash withdrawn by assessee from bank account against amount of cashdeposit into

SH. JASWINDER SINGH,BATHINDA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,, BATHINDA

Bench: Sh. Ravish Sood & Dr. M. L. Meena

54 of Transfer of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, could only be effected vide a registered instrument, therefore, the claim of the assessee of having received a consideration of Rs. 1.21 crores on the sale of the land in question vide an “agreement to sell”, dated 22.06.2010 had no evidentiary value. Also, the Pr. CIT was not inspired

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 23A company (i.e., a company in which the public is not substantially interested) can be said to have been availed of for his benefit by the shareholder. The matter was referred to the President of the Tribunal, who agreed with the view by the AM. A loan or advance received by a share-holder assumed the character

BALDEV SINGH S/O GAJJAN SINGH,TARN TARAN vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,, TARN TARAN

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

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A. No. 178/Asr/2016 Assessment Year: 2010-11

section 68 to apply or be invoked. Further, allowing credit for the full value of the opening capital as on 01.4.2009 (Rs.5,10,889), would amount to giving credit for the opening bank balance (Rs.1,90,896) twice in-as-much as the said amount would stand to form part of the assessee’s opening capital. I, accordingly, estimate

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

54. We find that clause (e) to Section 43(5) of the Act was inserted into the statue w.e.f. 01.04.2014 and therefore, the said provision was applicable w.e.f. assessment year 2014-15 and was in force during the year under consideration. Section 43(5) of the Act provides definition of speculative transaction giving rise to speculative income

SHRIMATI NANDINI SHARMA ,AMRITSAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, AMRITSAR

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

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

68,459/- 7,61,200/- 6 Nandini Sharma v. ACIT/DCIT M/s PRABHAT TRADERS Inventory Stock as inventorized by the PB Page no. department 112 1. 13,87,700 13. That during statement recorded u/s 131, it was duly clarified by the assessee that the stock related to cloth items pertains to M/s Prabhat Traders Prop. Santosh Sharma, and was also

SATIA INDUSTRIES LIMITED,MUKTSAR vs. DCIT/ACIT CIRCLE I, BATHINDA, BATHINDA

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

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

54,028/- (against the initial suggested amount of Rs.19.44 crores). 8. As such, considering the direction of the DRP and the order in effect of the TPO the adjustments has been revised at Rs. 6.66 crores resulting in an addition to the total income and further-more the deduction claimed by the assessee u/s 80IA at Rs.15,68

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

54,798 13.1 The facts as emerging from record are that assessee company had declared net profit of Rs. 76,68,765/- in respect of meat export division. The profit and loss account of the aforesaid division is placed at pages 85A to 85F of Paper Book. The meat export division is engaged in export of meat

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

54,798 13.1 The facts as emerging from record are that assessee company had declared net profit of Rs. 76,68,765/- in respect of meat export division. The profit and loss account of the aforesaid division is placed at pages 85A to 85F of Paper Book. The meat export division is engaged in export of meat

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

54,798 13.1 The facts as emerging from record are that assessee company had declared net profit of Rs. 76,68,765/- in respect of meat export division. The profit and loss account of the aforesaid division is placed at pages 85A to 85F of Paper Book. The meat export division is engaged in export of meat