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

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3, SRINAGAR vs. M/S TRUMBO CEMENT INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED, SRINAGAR

In the result, the Ground no-1 of the Revenue for ITA No

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

66,20,474/- @ 10% . The assessee could not substantiate these expenses during assessment proceedings. The relief is allowed entirely on estimation basis without appreciating the I.T.A. No.123/Asr/2020 3 I.T.A. No.124/Asr/2020 fact that disallowance was made owing to non production of relevant voucher/bills of expenses. As the quantum of relief has no rational basis, the findings

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3, SRINAGAR vs. M/S TRUMBO CEMENT INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED , SRINAGAR

In the result, the Ground no-1 of the Revenue for ITA No

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

66,20,474/- @ 10% . The assessee could not substantiate these expenses during assessment proceedings. The relief is allowed entirely on estimation basis without appreciating the I.T.A. No.123/Asr/2020 3 I.T.A. No.124/Asr/2020 fact that disallowance was made owing to non production of relevant voucher/bills of expenses. As the quantum of relief has no rational basis, the findings

SHRI MOHD MANZOOR,RAJOURI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -2 (3), JAMMU

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

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

66 (Karnataka) HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, Belagavi vs. Basetteppa B Badami Section 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Unexplained money (Cash deposits) - Assessment years 2006-07, 2008-09, 2010-11 and 2011-12 - For preceding assessment year, sufficient amount of cash in hand to be brought forward had reached finality - During current year

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

section 68 of the act are satisfied with regard to loan*'of Rs 1,00,00,000/- received by the appellant from Sh. Amandeep Singh in the year under consideration and no addition of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- is called for u/s 68 of the act in respect of loan from Sh. Amandeep Singh and the same

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

66 (Karnataka) “Section 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Unexplained money (Cash deposits) - Assessment years 2006-07, 2008-09, 2010-11 and 2011-12 - For preceding assessment year, sufficient amount of cash in hand to be brought forward had reached finality - During current year, on basis of cash deposits in assessee's bank accounts, Assessing Authority made addition

SHRIMATI RAVNEET KAUR GREWAL,MOHALI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR

In the result, the bunch of appeals of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Laliet Kumar & Dr. M. L. Meenai.T.A. Nos. 48 To 53/Asr/2021 Assessment Years: 2007-08 To 2012-13

68,578 66,478 66,478 11,930 Deposits in Indian Bank Concealment of Income (As per last line of Para 3.7(v) page no 5. of A.order u/s 143(3) 2008-09 (>) 7,03,400 4,37,400 4,37,400 1,23,735 Deposits in Indian Bank Concealment of Income (As per last line of Para

SHRIMATI RAVNEET KAUR GREWAL,MOHALI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR

In the result, the bunch of appeals of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Laliet Kumar & Dr. M. L. Meenai.T.A. Nos. 48 To 53/Asr/2021 Assessment Years: 2007-08 To 2012-13

68,578 66,478 66,478 11,930 Deposits in Indian Bank Concealment of Income (As per last line of Para 3.7(v) page no 5. of A.order u/s 143(3) 2008-09 (>) 7,03,400 4,37,400 4,37,400 1,23,735 Deposits in Indian Bank Concealment of Income (As per last line of Para

SHRIMATI RAVNEET KAUR GREWAL,MOHALI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR

In the result, the bunch of appeals of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Laliet Kumar & Dr. M. L. Meenai.T.A. Nos. 48 To 53/Asr/2021 Assessment Years: 2007-08 To 2012-13

68,578 66,478 66,478 11,930 Deposits in Indian Bank Concealment of Income (As per last line of Para 3.7(v) page no 5. of A.order u/s 143(3) 2008-09 (>) 7,03,400 4,37,400 4,37,400 1,23,735 Deposits in Indian Bank Concealment of Income (As per last line of Para

SHRIMATI RAVNEET KAUR GREWAL,MOHALI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXCENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR

In the result, the bunch of appeals of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Laliet Kumar & Dr. M. L. Meenai.T.A. Nos. 48 To 53/Asr/2021 Assessment Years: 2007-08 To 2012-13

68,578 66,478 66,478 11,930 Deposits in Indian Bank Concealment of Income (As per last line of Para 3.7(v) page no 5. of A.order u/s 143(3) 2008-09 (>) 7,03,400 4,37,400 4,37,400 1,23,735 Deposits in Indian Bank Concealment of Income (As per last line of Para

SHRIMATI RAVNEET KAUR GREWAL,MOHALI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR

In the result, the bunch of appeals of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Laliet Kumar & Dr. M. L. Meenai.T.A. Nos. 48 To 53/Asr/2021 Assessment Years: 2007-08 To 2012-13

68,578 66,478 66,478 11,930 Deposits in Indian Bank Concealment of Income (As per last line of Para 3.7(v) page no 5. of A.order u/s 143(3) 2008-09 (>) 7,03,400 4,37,400 4,37,400 1,23,735 Deposits in Indian Bank Concealment of Income (As per last line of Para

SHRIMATI RAVNEET KAUR GREWAL,MOHALI vs. DEPUTY COMMIOSSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR

In the result, the bunch of appeals of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Laliet Kumar & Dr. M. L. Meenai.T.A. Nos. 48 To 53/Asr/2021 Assessment Years: 2007-08 To 2012-13

68,578 66,478 66,478 11,930 Deposits in Indian Bank Concealment of Income (As per last line of Para 3.7(v) page no 5. of A.order u/s 143(3) 2008-09 (>) 7,03,400 4,37,400 4,37,400 1,23,735 Deposits in Indian Bank Concealment of Income (As per last line of Para

M/S. OHRI & BATRA SHOWBIZ PRIVATE LIMITED,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, JALANDHAR

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

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

68 of the 'Act', in the hands of the assessee company. 16. That the A.O on the basis of misconceived facts, premature findings and self-suiting inferences, without affording reasonable opportunity to the assessee company, had made an addition of Rs. 7,66,500/- towards alleged 'Unsecured loans' and 'deposits' in the hands of the assessee company. 17. That

M/S. OHRI & BATRA SHOWBIZ PRIVATE LIMITED ,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, JALANDHAR

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

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

68 of the 'Act', in the hands of the assessee company. 16. That the A.O on the basis of misconceived facts, premature findings and self-suiting inferences, without affording reasonable opportunity to the assessee company, had made an addition of Rs. 7,66,500/- towards alleged 'Unsecured loans' and 'deposits' in the hands of the assessee company. 17. That

M/S OHRI & BATRA SHOWBIZ PRIVATE LIMITED,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, JALANDHAR

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

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

68 of the 'Act', in the hands of the assessee company. 16. That the A.O on the basis of misconceived facts, premature findings and self-suiting inferences, without affording reasonable opportunity to the assessee company, had made an addition of Rs. 7,66,500/- towards alleged 'Unsecured loans' and 'deposits' in the hands of the assessee company. 17. That

M/S. OHRI & BATRA SHOWBIZ PRIVATE LIMITED,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL-CIRCLE-II, JALANDHAR

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

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

68 of the 'Act', in the hands of the assessee company. 16. That the A.O on the basis of misconceived facts, premature findings and self-suiting inferences, without affording reasonable opportunity to the assessee company, had made an addition of Rs. 7,66,500/- towards alleged 'Unsecured loans' and 'deposits' in the hands of the assessee company. 17. That

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

66. With the introduction of Section 56(2)(viii) and Section 145B(1), Parliament has enacted a specific charging mechanism to tax interest received on compensation or enhanced compensation as “Income from Other Sources” on receipt basis, thereby legislatively modifying the tax character of such receipts for assessment years commencing 01.04.2010 onwards. Once a direct charging provision exists

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

SHRI MOHAMMAD ABBAS ASHRAF,SRINAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -1, SRINAGAR

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

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

66 ITR 147 (SC); and CIT vs. Kurban HussainIbrahimjiMitkiborwala (1971) 82 ITR 821 (SC) has held that, the notice prescribed by section 148 cannot be regarded as a mere procedural requirement. It is only if the said notice is served on the assessee that the ITO would be justified in taking proceedings against the assessee. If no notice