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

57,500/-, received by assessee society, from identified persons, were anonymous donations, liable to tax under section 115BBC. 2. That having held so, the ld. CIT(A), grossly misconstrued the relevant provisions of law, to hold that the impugned corpus donation, once held to be taxable U/S.115BBC, was still to 3 Sant Baba Bhag Singh M. C. Society

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. However, same was sustained by the CIT (A) under section 69 of the Act on the ground that investment are not recorded in books of accounts. Since the change of section, amounts to enhancement without giving opportunity of being heard the assessee, hence, no sustainable in law. 3. Since above grounds of appeal related

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

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

68, 69, 69A, 69B, 69C or 69D and reflected in the return of income furnished under section 139. Hence, tax on this income was to be charged under section 115BBE even if it had been declared by the assessee in the return of income. Income has been erroneously taxed at lower tax rate in this case causing prejudice

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

68, 69, 69A, 69B, 69C or 69D and reflected in the return of income furnished under section 139. Hence, tax on this income was to be charged under section 115BBE even if it had been declared by the assessee in the return of income. Income has been erroneously taxed at lower tax rate in this case causing prejudice

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

68, 69, 69A, 69B, 69C or 69D and reflected in the return of income furnished under section 139. Hence, tax on this income was to be charged under section 115BBE even if it had been declared by the assessee in the return of income. Income has been erroneously taxed at lower tax rate in this case causing prejudice

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 CONTINENTAL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY ,JAMMU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, JAMMU

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

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

68 of the Act which was duly upheld by the ld. CIT(A) for non- submission of creditworthiness and source of investment of partners. Being dissatisfied in the appeal order the assesssee filed the appeal before us. 5. The ld. AR for assessee has filed the written submission which are kept in record. The ld. AR argued that the identity

DASHMESH TIMBER AND FURNITURE HOUSE,AJNALA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, AMRITSAR

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

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Krinwant Sahay

68 and from section 69 to 69D at a flat rate of tax and do not allow any deduction in respect of expenditure or allowance under the provisions of the Act. Therefore, it is important for application of section 115BBE that the assessee should first fall in any of these sections. In our opinion, in the present

M/S BLUE CITY TOWNSHIP & COLONIZERS,AMRITSAR. vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,, AMRITSAR.

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

57,965 only on 28-9-1978 from the Government of Madhya Pradesh, which was deposited in the nationalized bank, it would be exempt from assessment for the assessment year 1979-80 as per the provisions of section 54E. It was submitted by the assessee before the CIT(A) that the Assessing Officer had observed that as per section

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3, AMRITSAR vs. SHRIMATI RAJ RANI ARORA, AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeal of the department is dismissed

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

57,00,000 - 2,23,214 )= Rs. 67,16,786/-. 11 I.T.A. No. 10/Asr/2020 Dy. CIT v. Raj Rani Arora In the cash flow statement of Sh. Amandeep Singh for the F.Y. 2013-14 he has shown opening cash balance as on 01.04.2013 was of Rs. 31,01,679/-. The appellant has explained the generation of opening cashing hand

SMT. SATVIR KAUR W/O SH. SHINDER SINGH,FEROZEPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

57 of the Act and unsecured loans and the assessees furnished all the relevant documents which were examined by the AO who has taken a possible view. Therefore, it is our considered view that there was a due application of mind on the part of the AO in all the four cases and adequate and proper enquiries had been conducted

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3), ABOHAR, INCOME TAX OFFICE, ABOHAR vs. RAJ KUMAR, ABOHAR

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

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

Section 68 r.w.s. 115BBE) was rightly made to the returned income of the assessee. Therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 2,41,62,056/- u/s 68 r.w.s. 115BBE on account of Unexplained Sundry Creditors. 5. The Appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, vary any or all the above grounds of appeal

MESERS G.G CONTINEENTAL TRADES PVT.LTD,BATHINDA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-I, BATHINDA

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

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No.189/Asr/2018 Assessment Years: 2014-15

section 68 of the Act. The argument of the sum not representing ‘real income’, though not specifically advanced before us, is implicit in the argument advanced with reference to the genuineness of the loan/ advance, and therefore considered. The same would not carry the assessee’scase further, as would even otherwise be apparent from the host of decisions

MEASAGE G. G OILS & FATS PRIVATE LIMITED,BATHINDA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE- 1 , BATHINDA

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

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No.189/Asr/2018 Assessment Years: 2014-15

section 68 of the Act. The argument of the sum not representing ‘real income’, though not specifically advanced before us, is implicit in the argument advanced with reference to the genuineness of the loan/ advance, and therefore considered. The same would not carry the assessee’scase further, as would even otherwise be apparent from the host of decisions

KAMAL RAHIL,JALANDHAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

57,18,700/- and Rs. 24,66,200/- deposited in Standard Chartered Bank and ICICI Bank respectively. The assessee vide his reply dated 27.10.2011 explained with supporting documents that he is an agent and during the period under reference, he was providing services for getting students admission in foreign institutions for which lum sum payments in cash were received from

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 68 of the Act. The argument of the sum not representing ‘real income’, though not specifically advanced before us, is implicit in the argument advanced with reference to the genuineness of the loan/ advance, and therefore considered. The same would not carry the assessee’s case further, as would even otherwise be apparent from the host of decisions

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

68,24,103 does not actually have any impact as DRP has increased the value of Steam. However, the difference in overall value has been computed by reducing the sales value of steam and sale value of electricity. The assessee has already placed detailed submissions on record regarding the applicability of the correct rate for electricity. Therefore, the action