JASDEEP KAUR CHADHA-JALANDHAR,PUNJAB vs. JAO THE DCIT CIRCLE-4 JALANDHAR, PUNJAB

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the revenue appeal is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Udayan Das Gupta & Sh. Khettra Mohan Roy

75 has observed as under: “Where appellant showed unsecured loans received during relevant assessment year and AO made addition on ground that appellant failed to discharge onus of liability as laid down under section 68

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR vs. M/S JASDEEP KAUR CHADHA, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the revenue appeal is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Udayan Das Gupta & Sh. Khettra Mohan Roy

75 has observed as under: “Where appellant showed unsecured loans received during relevant assessment year and AO made addition on ground that appellant failed to discharge onus of liability as laid down under section 68

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

75 ITR 191 (SC)] It is further submitted that the Ld. CIT (A), has made his own analysis and concluded, that on the basis of circumstantial evidences, that appellate has cash from unexplained sources, when appellate produced sufficient direct evidences, the circumstantial presumptions cannot be preferred. Further, the Ld. CIT (A) has relied on the Apex Courts judgment in case

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

section 69, 69A, etc. can in fact be invoked only where the Revenue discharges the primary onus on it to show the assessee to be owner of the relevant asset. As explained in Chuharmal v. CIT [1988] 172 ITR 250 (SC), the same seek to provide statutory recognition to the principles of common law jurisprudence as enshrined

M/S IJM ESTATE PRIVATE LIMITED,NAKODAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , NAKODAR

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

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Hon’Ble & Sh. Ravish Soodita No.774/Asr./2017 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 M/S Ijm Estate Pvt. Ltd., Vs Income Tax Officer, Nakodar Railway Road, Nakodar (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aacci8557M

75,000/- under section 68 for the reason that the assessee could not produce the share applicant. Another addition

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

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

section 41(1)(a) arising, where so, only in respect of an actual liability, or one considered as so. That is, are consistent, rather than contrary. Could, one may ask, a purchase possibly be allowed as a deduction where the same does not result, simultaneously, in a liability there-against, to be met either in cash or in kind

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

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee is allowed

75, 638/- )\nRs.(49, 25,138/- )\nRs.17,77, 416/-\n11.\nHe further submitted that during recording of statement in survey proceedings,\nthe appellant at Question no 4 accepted the fact that the documents related to\nannexure A-1 (Loose paper), represents cash sale slips not recorded in the books of\naccounts [placed in page

MS/. S B M GOLD,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- 1 ( 4), JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessees is allowed

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

68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Addition confirmed is illegal and bad in law. 3. That on the facts & circumstances of the case, Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [‘CIT(A)’], has grossly erred in rejecting legal ground of appeal No. 3, wherein assessee has challenged that addition of Rs. 1,75,588/- made without invoking provisions of section

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

SMT. SATVIR KAUR W/O SH. SHINDER SINGH,FEROZEPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

68 read with section 263, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Cash credit (Gift) -Assessment years 2007-08 and 2008-09 - Assessee received certain amount as gifts from his father and sister who were non-residents in India - Assessing Officer after making detailed enquiries, took a view that assessee had duly proved identity, source and creditworthiness of donors - Commissioner

MESERS AXON LABORATORIES,HOSHIARPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -3 , HOSHIARPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assesse in ITANo

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Borad

75,500/- was assessable u/s.68 the cash amounting to Rs.1.0,OO 000/- invested in construction of house "ClS.rsscssableu/s.69, read with the provisions of section 158BBE. 4.1 That the Id.CIT(A) failed to appreciate that neither the source of cash recordeu iii books was ever disputed, nor for that matter, the books of account were rejected by the Id.ITO

MESERS G.G CONTINEENTAL TRADES PVT.LTD,BATHINDA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-I, BATHINDA

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

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No.189/Asr/2018 Assessment Years: 2014-15

75,000/- as a deemed dividend.” In the above judgment, it has been held that if there is consideration, which isbeneficial, to the company, received from the shareholder, then it is out of thescope of deemed dividend. In the present case, the company has received I.T.A. Nos.189/Asr/2018&513/Asr/2019 10 Assessment Years: 2014-15& 2016-17 interestto the tune

MEASAGE G. G OILS & FATS PRIVATE LIMITED,BATHINDA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE- 1 , BATHINDA

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

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No.189/Asr/2018 Assessment Years: 2014-15

75,000/- as a deemed dividend.” In the above judgment, it has been held that if there is consideration, which isbeneficial, to the company, received from the shareholder, then it is out of thescope of deemed dividend. In the present case, the company has received I.T.A. Nos.189/Asr/2018&513/Asr/2019 10 Assessment Years: 2014-15& 2016-17 interestto the tune

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

section 250(4)] through banks instead of disposing off the appeal for non-appearance without adjudicating on merits. 7. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, or alter any of the grounds of appeal.” I.T.A. No.22/Asr/2023 4 Assessment Year: 2014-15 2. The case was called for hearing, first, the ld. DR filed an adjournment petition before the bench

SHRI HARPHOOL BHARDWAJ,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFICER, NAKODAR, NAKODAR

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

75,000 Total Amount Rs.61,80,000 2. The Assessee submitted that Sh. Pran Nath son of Sh. Jagdish Ram is the real brother. The Id and Address proof like PAN and Adhar along with confirmation that he paid the amount to the Assessee out of the sale proceeds of his agriculture land. The Assessee also produced Sh. Pran Nath

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

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMMU vs. M/S. FIL INDUSTRIES LTD, SRINAGAR

In the result appeal of the assessee ground no 4 to 4

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

75,87,552/- 10,00,000/- (Received in the AY 2009-10) (139) ii) New Storage 58,48,50,242/- (145) 20000000/- (Received in the AY 2009-10) 1,54,42,626/- (Receipt in the instant 1.8 It may be thus, evident that such subsidy cannot be said to be an amount which has been received directly or indirectly