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

68 of the Act was totally unjustified. That due to this addition the A.O. has resulted in unrealistic net profit rate i.e; 28%. That even if the AO was not satisfied about the correctness or completeness of the account then the assessment could have been framed in the manner provided under section 144 of the Act. It is also

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

68 has to be assessed under section 56. In the case before us, source of unexplained cash credits is not known and hence they cannot be linked to any known source/head of income including income from other sources. In order to constitute 'income from 'other sources', the source, namely, the "other sources", has to be identified. Income from unexplained

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

68, 69, 69A et.al. (i.e., along with sections 69B to 69D), are also rules of evidence, so that where

SHRIMATI MEERA AGGARWAL,JALANDHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE- 2, JALANDHAR

Bench: Shri L. P. Sahu & Shri Ravish Sood

69B of the Act. 10. That the Learned CIT(A) has misconstrued the provisions of section 292C of the Act under which presumption is raised which is rebuttable and the assessee has duly rebutted by submitting affidavit of her father which has been accepted by the department. 12. That the assessee reserves the right to amend, alter or raise

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

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee is allowed

69B,\nread with Section 115BBE, are not applicable in the instant case\n32\n17.\nPer Contra the Ld DR relied on the order of the Ld PCIT, and argued that he\nwas justified in setting aside the order due to the fact that the order passed u/s\n143(3) was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue

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

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

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

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

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

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

69B of the Act. Accordingly, the impugned order of Id. CIT(A) is held to be infirm and perverse and as such, the addition is deleted. 9. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.” The Ld. Tribunal Bench in the case of Sharp Chucks & Machines Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT Central Circle-1, Jalandhar

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

SH. MANINDER SINGH CHEEMA,HOSHIARPUR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, HOSHIARPUR

In the result, the assessee appeal is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Laliet Kumar & Dr. M. L. Meenai.T.A. No. 702/Asr/2013 Assessment Year: 2009-10

68,84,212/- has been included in closing stock. .As such charge to trading account is. only. of Rs. 14,15,788/- & not Rs. 83,00,000/-. b) That amount of Rs. 83,00,000/- & 83,00,000/- & another amount surrendered total Rs. 1,20,00,000/-.have been duly declared in the return as detailed below:- Sr. No. Description