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

73 Section 69B, read with section 145, of the Income-tax Act, taxmann.com 1961 - Undisclosed investments (Stocks) - Whether where 100 books of account of assessee had been rejected by (Karnataka) assessing authority, same books of account could not be CIT, Belgaum v. relied upon in an addition on account of trade creditors Bahubali and also for arriving

SH. SATISH KUMAR,JALANDHAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,, JALANDHAR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Ravish Soodita No.105/Asr./2017 (Assessment Years: 2008-09)

73 taxmann.com 68 (Mumbai Trib.) wherein it was held as under: - 'I have carefully considered the rival submissions. In the present case the addition has been I made by the income tax authorities by treating the cash deposits in the bank account as an unexplained cash credit within the meaning of section

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

73 taxmann.com 68 deposits in bank account as unexplained cash credit (Mumbai - within meaning of section 68 and added

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

73,550 for the year on 23.03.2011 in response to notice u/s. 148. The basis of the said notice was the cash deposits (at Rs.11,63,500) in the bank account (with Centurion Bank of Punjab – CBOP) of one, Meenakshi Mittal (MM), proceedings u/s. 147 against whom were dropped accepting her explanation that the said money in fact belonged

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

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

Section 68. As observed hereinabove, our aforesaid view is fortified by the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT Vs. Bhaichand'N. Gandhi (1983) 141 ITR 67 (Bombay) wherein the Hon'ble High Court has held as under: - "As the Tribunal has pointed out, it is fairly well settled that when moneys

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

73-74). The non- furnishing the said Annexure ‘A’, i.e., along with the audited balance-sheet accompanying the return of income, was also confirmed with reference to the assessment record. And the hearing closed. 5. We have heard the parties, and perused the material on record. 5.1 The assessee’s case, as projected per the grounds of appeal

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

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

section 68 of the Act. 5.3. The AR mentioned that amount as received by the assessee-company source of Source of those Entries. Entry dated 22.08.2013 amounting to Rs. 7,73

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

73,000/- is confirmed as the source of which remain unexplained and unsubstantiated. Appellant gets part relief. All the grounds raised in this appeal are partly allowed.” 5. Now, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal on the grounds contained in the memorandum of appeal. In course of hearing, before the Tribunal, the ld. AR of the assessee submitted

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

YADAV RICE MILLS,MUKTSAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, BATHINDA, BATHINDA

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

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

section 143(1), Assessing Officer could initiate reassessment proceedings subsequently on basis of information supplied by Investigation wing of department that assessee had taken bogus purchase entries from two parties. 6 I.T.A. No. 415/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-13 (ii) Backbone Projects Ltd. vs. ACIT [2021] 131 taxmann.com 80 (Gujarat) (iii) Priya Blue Industries [2021] 130 taxmann.com 492 (Gujarat

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1 (1), JALANDHAR vs. SHRI ANIL KUMAR WASON, JALANDHAR

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

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No. 164/Asr/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-15

section 143(2), notice was issued by the ld. AO. In scrutiny assessment, assessee filed relevant documents before the ld. AO specially all the Sundry Creditors of the assessee amounts to Rs.5,68,93,270/-. The assessment was completed u/s. 143(3). The ld. AO made an addition amount of Rs.5,68.93,270/- I.T.A. No.164/Asr/2023 3 Assessment Year

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

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2 (2), MUKTSAR vs. AJAIB SINGH, VILLAGE BHARU

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Krinwant Sahay(Hybrid Hearing) I.T.A. No. 354/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-13

73,48,255/- and claimed benefit of section 54B. The Assessing Officer denied the benefit of section 54B holding that the same is not allowable against the sale of a capital asset other than agricultural land. The Assessing Officer passed an order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 dated 28.12.2019 assessing the Long Term Capital Gain at Rs.3,68

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

73,500/- had been received during the year.The findings of PCIT in the order passes under section 263 are place at page no 300 of paper book. 9.1 That the AO vide notice dated 21.10.2019 along with the annexure had asked the assessee to furnish copies of account of unsecured loans raised along with full narration and mode

SHRIMATI NANDINI SHARMA ,AMRITSAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, AMRITSAR

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

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

68,459/- 7,61,200/- 6 Nandini Sharma v. ACIT/DCIT M/s PRABHAT TRADERS Inventory Stock as inventorized by the PB Page no. department 112 1. 13,87,700 13. That during statement recorded u/s 131, it was duly clarified by the assessee that the stock related to cloth items pertains to M/s Prabhat Traders Prop. Santosh Sharma, and was also

SHRI SATISH KUMAR. S/O. SH. HANS RAJ ,HOSHIARPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-4, HOSHIARPUR

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.258/Asr/2019 िनधा"रणवष"/A.Y.:2014-15 िनधा"रणवष" िनधा"रणवष" िनधा"रणवष" Shri Satish Kumar S/O Hans Raj, Vs. Principal Commissioner Of B-12, Mch-366/13, Billa Income-Tax-1, Jalandhar House, New Jagatpura, Hoshiarpur Pan: Aawpk 0932 D अपीलाथ" Appellant अपीलाथ" ""यथ"/Respondent ""यथ" अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" ""यथ" ""यथ"

68,192 on weig bridge expenses. As these expenses were paid to particular entity which are in the nature of Works contract and liable to TDS under section 194C of the Act. However, the perusal of records suggest that there is nothing on record that TDS was deducted on these payments. The Pr.CIT further, observed that the assessee

SHRI AJAY KUMAR GROVER ,SRINAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3 (1), SRINAGAR

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

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharati.T.A. Nos. 277 & 300/Asr/2018 Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14

section 143(3) of IT Act. An addition of Rs. 2,76,388/- was made by him to the returned income of Rs.9,38,373/-&partly upheld by worthy CIT(A) to the extent of Rs. 50,000/- NOW THE ARGUMENTS GROUND NOS. 1 to 5 Your Honour- As is a common knowledge, various expenses have to be incurred

SHRI AJAY KUMAR GROVER ,SRINAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 3(1), SRINAGAR

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

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharati.T.A. Nos. 277 & 300/Asr/2018 Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14

section 143(3) of IT Act. An addition of Rs. 2,76,388/- was made by him to the returned income of Rs.9,38,373/-&partly upheld by worthy CIT(A) to the extent of Rs. 50,000/- NOW THE ARGUMENTS GROUND NOS. 1 to 5 Your Honour- As is a common knowledge, various expenses have to be incurred