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

6. Submissions in respect of Ground No. 9 Ground 9. That the CIT(A) NFAC has erred in confirming the order of the AO ignoring No 9 the position of law that provisions of section 68 cannot be applied in respect of income from a source which has already been taxed which would amount to double taxation

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

6. A perusal of the facts and the above extract reveals that the revenue failed to adduce any evidence to prove that the transaction between the assessee and the company was a mere smoke screen to cover a surreptitious payment of money to a shareholder. M/s Nexo Products (India) received certain export orders but was not in a position

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

6. A perusal of the facts and the above extract reveals that the revenue failed to adduce any evidence to prove that the transaction between the assessee and the company was a mere smoke screen to cover a surreptitious payment of money to a shareholder. M/s Nexo Products (India) received certain export orders but was not in a position

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

6. In view of above, the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer on 24.12.2019 is held to be erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of revenue in terms of provisions contained in clause (a) of Explanation 2 below sub section (1) of section 263 of the. I.T. Act, 1961. The assessment order

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

2), provisions of section 68 would apply in circumstances mentioned therein - Held, yes - Assessing Officer Thane examined bank Pass Book of assessee and treated cash [2016] 73 taxmann.com 68 deposits in bank account as unexplained cash credit (Mumbai - within meaning of section 68 and added same in Trib.) income of assessee - Whether since assessee was not maintaining

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

68 of the Income Tax Act. 4. That while confirming the above additions, the ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the special provisions of section 115BEE read with section 68/69 were not applicable to the case of trust, inasmuch as, once the donations are held to be anonymous, the same are hit only by the provisions

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

6. The Ld. DR, on the other hand, supported the order of the Ld. Pr.CIT, with her primary contention being that the 7 A.Y.2015-16 AO had failed to examine the specific issues raised by the Ld. Pr.CIT and has simply accepted the claim of the assessee as such. In this regard she heavily relied on the order of the Ld.Pr.CIT

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

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

6 Farukh Ahmad Zeb v. ITO The assessee is not drawing this income in the forms of deposits from his business activity. Moreover, there is no evidence of any debits in this account which may indicate these amounts to be from business activity. The fact that the assessee has embezzled this money also indicates that this money is not from

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

2, 3 & 4 of the appeal has not been pressed before the Bench, therefore same are dismissed as not pressed. 4. ground No. 6 and 7 are either consequential nature or general to the addition made by the AO and hence does not require separate adjudication. Hence, same are dismissed as irrelevant. 5. The remaining ground

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

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

6,105 to 124]" There was no mention or proposal to amend section 43(5)(e) in CTT Act 2013 which was only inserted in August 2014 vide F A (No.2) 2014. 39. The specific amendment w.r.t. chargeability of CTT was brought in the Act only in FA (No. 2) in August 2014, but all such transactions of assessee

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 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

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

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

2. That the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the amount of loan was received from the above said parties during the year under consideration through banking channels and the same was paid back through banking channels during the same year and, as such, the confirmation of addition as made by the Ld. CIT(A) is against

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

2. That the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the amount of loan was received from the above said parties during the year under consideration through banking channels and the same was paid back through banking channels during the same year and, as such, the confirmation of addition as made by the Ld. CIT(A) is against

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

2. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) was in error in not appreciating the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of NRA Iron and Steel Pvt. Ltd., where the Apex Court while discussing genuineness of share capital laid down the general principles

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee ITA No

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No.238/Asr/2023 Assessment Year: 2020-21

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