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"

56 of the Act.” Therefore, Learned Counsel argued that when the cash deposits are taxed under section 68 it cannot

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 cannot be assessed as income from other sources under section 56. 15. Thus what is taxed under Chapter

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

section 68 of the Act. Therefore, the assessee cannot escape from the burden cast upon him and unfortunately in these cases 18 I.T.A. Nos. 346 & 347/Asr/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 the burden is heavy as the facts establish that the shares which were traded by the assessees had phenomenal and fanciful rise in price in a short

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

section 68 of the Act. Therefore, the assessee cannot escape from the burden cast upon him and unfortunately in these cases 18 I.T.A. Nos. 346 & 347/Asr/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 the burden is heavy as the facts establish that the shares which were traded by the assessees had phenomenal and fanciful rise in price in a short

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

M/S. AMAN TRADING CORP.,JAMMU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAMMU

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 255/(Asr)/2013 Assessment Year: 1997-98

section 68; the onus to prove the genuineness of the cash credits being on the assessee (PB pgs. 80-84). The matter was taken up again for assessment vide issue of notices u/ss. 143(2)/142(1) on 07.06.2001 and, further, the assessee required to produce five (5) creditors vide order-sheet entry dated 20.06.2001. However, despite several notices

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

Section 56(2)(viia) are not applicable on the Assessee Commissioner with respect to both of the aforementioned subject sale transactions. However the assessee has failed to consider that the assessee has also purchased 2323 shares of M/s Neeman Medical International BV (Neeman BV) on 31-03- 2014. The AO has also failed to examine

M/S. KING ENTERTAINMENT PRIVATE LIMITED,NAWANSHAHR vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - II, JALANDHAR

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

Bench: Sh. N. K. Choudhry & Sh. O. P. Meenai.T.A. No. 523/Asr/2017 Assessment Year: 2005-06

68 was inserted by Finance Act, 2012, w.e.f. 01.04.2013. Even according to clause (xvi) of section 2(24) of the Act, this consideration received for issue of shares as exceeds the fare market value of the shares referred to in clause (viib) of sub-section 2 of section 56

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 115-O;’ It is thus only the dividend declared, distributed or paid by a company, on which tax u/s. 115-O has been suffered, that falls u/s. 10(34), and would therefore not stand to be assessed u/s. 2(24)(ii) r/w s. 56 of the Act. The said dividend would only be that envisaged

THE DHAMAI COOPERATIVE AGRICULTURE SERVICE SOCIETY LIMITED,HOSHIARPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , HOSHIARPUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the appellant are allowed and the order(s) of the Kerala High Court and other authorities to the contrary are set aside

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No.273/Asr/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18

68,544/- Thus, it is clear that the assessee has parked its surplus/idle funds with the aforesaid banks and is earning huge interest income on FDRs. The assessee has claimed its entire income as deduction under section 80P of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Vide Notice under section 142(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 issued

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. 15,42,000.” 4. Lalchand Bhagat AmbicaRamVs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 288 (SC) The relevant paragraph of the Hon’able Apex Court respectfully is reproduced as follows: - “A decision of the Allahabad High Court reported in Kanpur Steel

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. 15,42,000.” 4. Lalchand Bhagat AmbicaRamVs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 288 (SC) The relevant paragraph of the Hon’able Apex Court respectfully is reproduced as follows: - “A decision of the Allahabad High Court reported in Kanpur Steel

PUNEET SAHDEV,JAMMU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAMMU

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

56,112/- on account of so called unexplained credits u/s 68 of the IT Act, 1961. The A.O did not appreciate that these were genuine creditors in due course of business and merely on the basis of conjectures, surmise and suppositions the addition has been made. The A.O has failed to place any adverse material against the assessee on record

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAMMU vs. SH. PUNEET SEHDEV, PROP., JAMMU

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

56,112/- on account of so called unexplained credits u/s 68 of the IT Act, 1961. The A.O did not appreciate that these were genuine creditors in due course of business and merely on the basis of conjectures, surmise and suppositions the addition has been made. The A.O has failed to place any adverse material against the assessee on record

SH. PUNEET SEHDEV PROP;,JAMMU vs. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER,, JAMMU

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

56,112/- on account of so called unexplained credits u/s 68 of the IT Act, 1961. The A.O did not appreciate that these were genuine creditors in due course of business and merely on the basis of conjectures, surmise and suppositions the addition has been made. The A.O has failed to place any adverse material against the assessee on record