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. 11. That the learned assessing Officer has erred in rejecting the books of accounts u/s145(3), without serving the show cause notice as embedded in Sec 144 read with Sec145(3). I.T.A. No.195/Asr/2022 4 Assessment Year: 2017-18 12. That the appellant craves leave to add, amend any ground of appeal.” 2. Brief facts of the case are that

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

SHRI SAMREEN SHAFI,SRINAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, SRINAGAR

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

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

section 44AD, when the said transactions were duly recorded in books of accounts and income earned from these transactions stands declared voluntary in the ITR filed under PAN-AHCPS0377H 5. The assessment is based on mere presumptions and conjectures. I.T.A. No.67/Asr/2023 3 Assessment Year: 2017-18 6. Assessee craves right to add, alter or modify any grounds) [of appeal

MESERS SHREE BHAGWATI COTTON TRADERS,BATHINDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD 1 (2), BATHINDA

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

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

68 on account of unexplained credit in the books of account without appreciating that the primary onus of proving capacity of the creditor as well as genuineness of the transaction was not discharged by the assessee.” I.T.A. No. 479/Asr/2018 5 &I.T.A. No. 480/Asr/2018 4. Brief fact of the case is that both appeal of the assessee and the revenue

INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD 1 (2), BATHINDA vs. MESERS SHREE BHAGWATI COTTON TRADERS ,, BATHINDA

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

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

68 on account of unexplained credit in the books of account without appreciating that the primary onus of proving capacity of the creditor as well as genuineness of the transaction was not discharged by the assessee.” I.T.A. No. 479/Asr/2018 5 &I.T.A. No. 480/Asr/2018 4. Brief fact of the case is that both appeal of the assessee and the revenue

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

79,520/- mainly on account of commission income of Aharatiya and interest income. No agriculture income was declared in his return of income. Likewise no agriculture income has been shown by Sh. Amandeep Singh in his returns of income for AY 2012-13 to 2015-16. In his statement on oath recorded by the AO in reply to the query

SHRI MOHD MANZOOR,RAJOURI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -2 (3), JAMMU

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

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

79,00,960.00 6,32,076.80 Profit @ 8% on deposit during pre and post demonetization period The sales made by the appellant up to 08.11.2016 as per the bank statements works out to Rs.65.10 Lakh and the post demonetization sales works out to Rs.13,90,960/- . The profits earned pre demonetization period and post demonetization period is tabulated as under

RANJAN AGGARWAL,AMRITSAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-II, AMRITSAR

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

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

79,04,500/- to the returned income being the amount of cash deposited in two banks of Assessee firm during demonetization period although the cash deposit were duly recorded in regular books of account which had been duly audited by qualified chartered accountant & cash had been generated from genuine cash sale. 2. That during Inspection by Excise and taxation department

SHRI ONKAR SINGH ,HOSHIARPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3, HOSHIARPUR

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

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

section 68 of the Act is illegal, unjustified and unwarranted by the facts of the case, because the Assessee is an agriculturist and is not maintaining books of A/c. 3. That the AO has not found credit in the books of the Assessee and saving A/c maintained by the Assessee cannot be treated as books of A/c as such

SHRI ONKAR SINGH,HOSHIARPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3, HOSHIARPUR

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

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

section 68 of the Act is illegal, unjustified and unwarranted by the facts of the case, because the Assessee is an agriculturist and is not maintaining books of A/c. 3. That the AO has not found credit in the books of the Assessee and saving A/c maintained by the Assessee cannot be treated as books of A/c as such

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

SATIA INDUSTRIES LIMITED,MUKTSAR vs. DCIT/ACIT CIRCLE I, BATHINDA, BATHINDA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

79 of Case Law PB) 17 I.T.A. No. 702/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2021-22 I. Section 80-IA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 read with section 43A of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 - Deductions - Profits and gains from infrastructure undertakings (Computation of deduction) - Assessment year 2001-02 - Assessee, engaged in electricity generation and industrial activities, established captive power

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

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

SHRIMATI NEETIMA GOYAL,FEROZPUR CANTT. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,3(2), FEROZPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed on legal ground

Bench: Shri L.P. Sahu, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.184/Asr/2018 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2011-2012) Neetima Goyal, Vs. Ito, Ward-3(2), Ferozepur Prop. Raghav Sales, G.T.Road, Ferozepur Cantt., Pin-152001 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Panno. : Aicpg 3586 H (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri I.P.Bansal, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Charan Dass, Dr

section 147 and also on the ground that the sanction granted by the JCIT is not in accordance of mandate of law. For this purpose, reliance is placed on the decision in the case of Smt. Prabha Rani Agarwal V. ITO. Copy at pages 1-7 of compendium. 5 6. From the reasons recorded it can be seen that

SHRI SUKHDEV SINGH KANG,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICR, NAKODAR

Bench: Sh. Ravish Sood & Dr. M. L. Meena

section 147 of the Income Tax Act 1961 for the AY 2009-10.” As is discernible from the assessment order, the A.O, viz. Income-tax Officer, Ward-4, Phagwara after reopening the case of the assessee u/s 147 of the Act had transferred the case to the Income-tax Officer, Nakodar. The assessee in compliance to the notice issued