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

65,00,000 Aggarwal ledger for your ready reference. (Refer pg 118). In this regard, we are Amardeep enclosing 27,488 0 0 27,488/- Singh herewith the ledger for your ready I.T.A. No.117/Asr/2022 10 Assessment Year: 2017-18 reference. (Refer pg 120). In this regard, we are enclosing Gautam herewith the Construct

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"

65 form,Therefore, such decision is distinguishable on facts hence, not applicable to the assessee. It was further, submitted that as per section 292B of the Act the CIT (A) can rechristened the head of income. Therefore, substitution of section 69 in place of section 68

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

65 (Gujarat), Held “Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Cash credit (In case firm partners) - Assessment year

AMIT SHARMA,BASTI NAU, JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Krinwant Sahay

65,000/- has been subjected to taxation under the deeming provisions of section 69A and has been charged to tax, at rates prescribed u/s 115BBE of the Act, 1961. 3 I.T.A. No.203/Asr/2024 Amit Sharma v. Dy. CIT 4. The matter was carried in appeal and the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal in absence of any written submissions

SH. BARAT PAL SOOD,,PHAGWARA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,, PHAGWARA

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

68 are "may be charged to tax" which clearly indicates that it is not necessary to make an addition in every case and situation. We draw your attention to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Smt. P.K Noorjehan reported at 237 ITR 570 wherein it was held while dealing with section 69 that

HIMALYA SPINNING MILLS,AMRITSAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- 2 (1), AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

Section 68 of the Income Tax Act,1961. The parawise observation of Worthy CIT(A) with submissions of the appellant are as under ; Para Observations of CIT (A)/AO’s observation Submissions No of (reproduced) CIT(A)’s order 3.3 To verify the cash sale, the assessee was The appellant provided asked to produce complete books of stock detail/tally

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

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

65 lakhs, over and above the normal business profits), has been assessed (accepted) in scrutiny proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Act, 1961, after examination of regular books of accounts supported by relevant bills and vouchers, but the surrender amount of Rs.65 lakhs , has been treated as deemed income u/s 69 A of the Act, 1961, and subjected

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

SMT. SANDEEP KAUR W/O SH SUKHPAL SINGH,MALOUT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2 (5), MUKTSAR

In the result, the appeal bearing ITA No

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

68 or 69A, excess stock is covered u/s 69 or 69B, construction of Shed/Godown is covered u/s 69B or 69C and advances made to Sundry Parties is covered u/s 69, 69B or 69D is like an open ended hypothesis which is not supported by any specific finding that the matter shall fall under which of the specific sections

MESERS AXON LABORATORIES,HOSHIARPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -3 , HOSHIARPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assesse in ITANo

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Borad

65,020/- after including the surrendred income of Rs.50 lac. Case was I.T.A No. 316/ASR/2018 2 manualy selected for scrutiny followed by serving of notices u/s 142(1) & 143(2) of the Act, assessee made various submissons and considering the same income assessed at Rs.51,21,024/- after making various additions of Rs.40,56,004/- only. The assessee challenged these

BALWINDER SINGH,MOGA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, MOGA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

68 or 694, excess stock is covered u/s 69 or 698, construction of Shed/Godown is covered u/s 698 or 69C and advances made to Sundry Parties is covered uls 69, 698 or 690 is like an open ended hypothesis which is not supported by any specific finding that the matter shall fall under which of the specific sections

SHRI SURINDER KUMAR ,MANSA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, BATHINDA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

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

68 of Income Tax Act, besides Rs. 22,525/- on interest paid to these creditors. He argued that during the course of appellate proceedings, written submissions were filed. However, the Ld. CIT(A) has merely mentioned that the same were considered and rejected relying on some citation without discussing the facts of the case at hands that how the citation

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

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

SH.ARUN NARULA,AMRITSAR vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, AMRITSAR

In the result, the both the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Sh. N.K.Choudhry & Dr. A.L.Saini

65,000/- to Rs.22,75,000/- u/s 68 of the Act, against which the assessee is in appeal before us. (A.Ys.2010-11 & 2011-12) Sh. Arun Narula vs. DCIT 8. The Assesse while relying upon the judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Kabul Chawla {61 taxmann.com 412}, reiterated the same stand taken

SH. ARUN NARULA,AMRITSAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE , AMRITSAR

In the result, the both the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Sh. N.K.Choudhry & Dr. A.L.Saini

65,000/- to Rs.22,75,000/- u/s 68 of the Act, against which the assessee is in appeal before us. (A.Ys.2010-11 & 2011-12) Sh. Arun Narula vs. DCIT 8. The Assesse while relying upon the judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Kabul Chawla {61 taxmann.com 412}, reiterated the same stand taken

BHUPENDRA FLOUR MILLS PVT LTD,BATHINDA vs. ITO, WARD 1(1), BATHINDA, BATHINDA

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of out above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Shri Udayandasgupta, Jm आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.54/Asr/2025 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) M/S Bhupendra Flour Mills Pvt Ltd. Ito Ward - 1(1) बनाम/ Railway Road Central Revenue Building Bhatinda, Punjab – 151001 Civil Lines, Bhatinda Vs. Punjab - 151001 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaccb-6192-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) - Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Farhat Khan (Cit) – Ld. Dr (Virtual) सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05-02-2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 20.02.2026 : आदेश / O R D E R

65. It is a settled principle that a precedent is an authority only for what it explicitly decides, and cannot be extended to situations or statutory regimes which the Court did not consider. [See State of Orissa v. Sudhansu Sekhar Misra (1968) AIR SC 647; Union of India v. Major Bahadur Singh (2006) 1 SCC 368]. In the latter decision

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

65,41,118/-by rejecting the audited books of accounts of the assessee. Appeal was filed before the ld. CIT(A) against the order of the AO. The ld. CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal. The addition was restricted amount to Rs. 15,54,20,000/- against the assessee. Being dissatisfied on the order of appeal, the assessee has agitated