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

68. The assessee has argued that the decisions of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court and the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court, which have upheld the post-amendment taxability of interest on enhanced compensation under Section 56(2)(viii), are per incuriam as they did not expressly consider the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s rulings in Hari Singh

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 147 on 14th December 2019. The copy of same is enclosed at 2015 [Rs. 520020]. [Para No 4.1 of the page no 173 to 177. order enclosed at page 2. That the Ld. AO while drawing the allegation has failed to no 4-5 of the paper appreciate that the appellant has made purchased to the tune

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

72 taxmann.com 124 (P&H) on the issue of mentioning wrong section 68 as against 69A of the Act has observed as under: “14. The submission is not well founded. This is merely a case of a wrong section being mentioned in the assessment order and in the order of CIT (A). All the jurisdictional facts for invoking

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

Section 56(2)(viia) are not applicable on the Assessee Commissioner with respect to both of the aforementioned subject sale transactions. However the assessee has failed to consider that the assessee has also purchased 2323 shares of M/s Neeman Medical International BV (Neeman BV) on 31-03- 2014. The AO has also failed to examine

SHRI FAROOQ AHMAD AHANGAR,SRINAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-3(1), SRINAGAR

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

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

72,590.00 u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. That the AO has totally overlooked the facts and circumstances of the case and resorted to bald addition. 3. That the appellant craves leave to add/amend any ground of appeal at the time of hearing.” Farooq Ahmad Ahangar v. ITO ITA No. 606/Asr/2018 (Assessment Year 2009-10): 4. Briefly

SHRI FAROOQ AHMAD AHANGAR,SRINAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFICER, WARD-3(1, SRINAGAR

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

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

72,590.00 u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. That the AO has totally overlooked the facts and circumstances of the case and resorted to bald addition. 3. That the appellant craves leave to add/amend any ground of appeal at the time of hearing.” Farooq Ahmad Ahangar v. ITO ITA No. 606/Asr/2018 (Assessment Year 2009-10): 4. Briefly

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

2(22)(e), for it to be regarded as dividend there-under. The only amount ‘repaid’ by the assessee to GAPL during this period (i.e., from 15.10.2013 to 06.11.2013) is Rs. 7,69,144 (on 16.10.2013), which is in respect of credits (dated 29.07.2013 & 31.07.2013) toward insurance payment. The same, though liable to be construed as dividend u/s. 2

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

SHRIMATI JATINDER KAUR(ALIAS AMRITA),JALANDHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JALANDHAR

In the result all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

68 of proving the cash credit were satisfied by the assessee the addition should have been deleted rather than upholding the same u/s 56(1)(vii) of the Act. 4 That even otherwise on facts too, the CIT(A) has erred in holding that the Gift to the daughter by his father during the year which came from the Bank

SHRIMATI JATINDER KAUR (ALIAS AMRITA),JALANDHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JALANDHAR

In the result all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

68 of proving the cash credit were satisfied by the assessee the addition should have been deleted rather than upholding the same u/s 56(1)(vii) of the Act. 4 That even otherwise on facts too, the CIT(A) has erred in holding that the Gift to the daughter by his father during the year which came from the Bank

SHRIMATI JATINDER KAUR ( ALIAS AMRITA),JALANDHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JALANDHAR

In the result all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

68 of proving the cash credit were satisfied by the assessee the addition should have been deleted rather than upholding the same u/s 56(1)(vii) of the Act. 4 That even otherwise on facts too, the CIT(A) has erred in holding that the Gift to the daughter by his father during the year which came from the Bank

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

2 parties only, namely, Parvez Ahmed Mattoo and Abdullah Mattoo on 16/02/2015 and confirmation was received from these two parties. This is an admitted fact in the assessment order as well as in the remand report. As such the addition made may be deleted. 5. That the CIT(A) did not appreciate that no fresh confirmation letter was ever issued

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

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

2 of the paper book]. The personal balances were thus wrongly compared by the assessing officer with their balances in the books of the assessee. The business transactions not being under any doubt were not referred to by the persons concerned in the affidavits. The addition made by the assessing officer was bad in law as relevant query which could

SHRI OM PARKASH LEGAL HEIAR SMT PUSHPA VERMA,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(3), JALANDHAR

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A. No. 756/Asr/2017 Assessment Year: 2014-15

2 Om Parkash v. ITO Tribunal. The facts are not in dispute and, in fact, borne out by the record, with the impugned order being served on the assessee on 19/10/2017. The appeal was, accordingly, admitted, and the hearing in the matter proceeded with. Further, the same being filed by a representative assessee, it was explained by Sh. Sarna that

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2, MOGA vs. MEASGE TLG AGRO TRADERS PRIVTE LIMITED, MOGA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue, IT No- 637/Asr/2019 is dismissed

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

2. The revenue has taken the following grounds: - i) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and as per law the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was justified in accepting the explanation of the assessee about the source of share application money and share premium and thereby deleting the addition of Rs. 1,72,72,320/- made

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, AMRITSAR vs. SHRI BHUPINDER SINGH. M/S NOVELTY SWEETS, AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

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

section 143(2) was issued, in response to which the assessee filed reply and the AR furnished Books of account along with Bills & vouchers which were verified on test check basis. It is further mentioned that during the year assessee was running a sweets shop and restaurant in the name of M/s Novelty Sweets where a survey u/s 133A

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

68 r.w.s 115BBE of the Act) 3. Applying GP rate of 11.87% (But the NA addition of Rs. 2,72,17,362, were covered by the AO in addition of Rs. 15,54,20,000/- and no separate addition was made) Disallowance of expenses (1/4th and 4. 11,21,118 Ground Allowed NA 1/5th) as debited

MESERS AMARNARTH AGGARWAL BUILDERS PVT. LTD.,BATHINDA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-1, BATHINDA

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

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

section 36(2)(i) no deduction of bad 4 Amarnath Aggarwal B. P Ltd v. Dy.CIT doubtful debts. The assessee’s contention is that the assessee wanted to purchase the land in anticipation for financial gain in Panchkula and paid the amount accordingly. The assessee denied that he never claimed this amount u/s 36(2

NARINDER AND COMPANY,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(5), JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

2,50,000 Pulkit Aggarwal, HUF 1,23,500/- Total 13,73,500/- Perusal of assessment records shows that the assessee did not furnish any confirmations from theabove creditors. Nor were any enquiries/verification made by the AO on this issue at his own level.Only the names and PAN of the creditors were available in Form 3CD which could