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

69,395/- as unexplained cash credits under section 68 of the Income Tax Act. 5 Farukh Ahmad Zeb v. ITO 4. Being

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 or section 69 or section 69A or section 69B or section 69C or section

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

section 145(3) on the ground that the I.T.A. No.195/Asr/2022 9 Assessment Year: 2017-18 assessee has not furnished the sales bills. That the addition of Rs 2,74,00,000/- was made u/s 68 of the Act on account of unexplained cash deposit and the same is taxed u/s 115BBE of the Act at the rate

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

68 but might be assessed in individual hands of partners, if it is permissible under section 69 - Whether reasons

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

section 68, 69 to 69D of the Act to create a deeming fiction to tax any sum already credited

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

69 concerns the unexplained investments. At the outset, the area of both these sections are clear and distinct. Section 68

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

69 concerns the unexplained investments. At the outset, the area of both these sections are clear and distinct. Section 68

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

Section 69 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Unexplained 487 (PUNJ. & HAR.) investments - Assessment year 1989-90 - Assessing Officer made certain additions on ground that money HIGH COURT OF utilised by it in purchasing drafts amounted to PUNJAB AND unexplained investment - Tribunal having found that HARYANA assessee actually paid money for meeting customs Wadhwa Ram duty and demurrage charges

SH. VIKRANT KANSHAL,BATHINDA vs. THE ICNOMET-AX OFFICER,, BATHINDA

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 367/Asr/2014 Assessment Year: 2008-09

sections 68 and 69, being cognate, held that the books of account referred to in section 68 are of the assessee

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

68 or section 69 or section 69A or section 69B or section 69C or section

SHRI NASIR AHMED RANGSHU,ANANTNAG vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, SRINAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

69 and 69B, it is not necessary that the books of account are to be rejected. The onus of proving the source of a sum of money is on the assessee. If he disputes the liability for tax, it is for him to show that the receipt was not income or that it was exempted from taxation under

ABDUL HAFIZ,UDHAMPUR vs. D.C.I.T, CIRCLE-2, JAMMU

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

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 465/(Asr)/2017 Assessment Year: 2013-14

68 or, for that matter, sections 69, 69A, et. al, which are essentially rules of evidence. The other provisions

SMT. KIRAN MAHAJAN,JAMMU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2) JAMMU

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

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 319 & S.A. 15/(Asr)/2017 Assessment Year: 2012-13

68 or, for that matter, sections 69, 69A, et. al, which are essentially rules of evidence. The other provisions

THE ASSISATANT COMMISSIOENR OF INCOME-TAX,, HOSHIARPUR vs. SH. MANINDER SINGH CHEEMA, HOSHIARPUR

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 719/Asr/2013 Assessment Year: 2007-08

68, as well as other sections of Chapter VI, viz. ss. 69, 69A to 69D, are, apart from constituting

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

Sections 68, 69, 69A, 69B, 69C or 69D and reflected in the return of income furnished under section

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

Sections 68, 69, 69A, 69B, 69C or 69D and reflected in the return of income furnished under section

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

Sections 68, 69, 69A, 69B, 69C or 69D and reflected in the return of income furnished under section

POONAM MARWAHA,AMRITSAR vs. ACIT DCIT CEN CIR, AMRITSAR

Bench: Sh. Vikram Singh Yadav & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

69 r.w.s. 115BBE of the act. 3. That the Ld. PCIT has erred in law in invoking the provisions of section 263 without there being any specific charge of no enquiry having been made the AO. 4. The Ld. PCIT-Central Circle Ludhiana has erred both on fact and law in not properly considering the submission made before