HOSHIARPUR TRADERS ,HOSHIARPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1, JALANDHAR

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

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

8, 2006 [Refer Page no 10-12 of judgement paper book] and the relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced below: I.T.A. No.117/Asr/2022 22 Assessment Year: 2017-18 “Section 68

M/S SANT BABA BHAG SINGH MEMORIAL CHARITABLE SOCIETY,JALANDHAR vs. D.C.I.T, CIRCLE - 1 (EXEMPTION), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 432/(Asr)/2017 Assessment Year: 2014-15

68 of the Act. Section 115 BBE shall, consequently, becomes superfluous. The assessee, therefore, who has challenged this aspect per Gd. 6 before us (Gd. 5 before the ld. CIT(A)), ought to have the benefit of the floor level qua this sum, or any other for 7 Sant Baba Bhag Singh M. C. Society v. Dy. CIT that

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

section 147 of the Income Tax Act is confirmed.” 8 Farukh Ahmad Zeb v. ITO 5. The Ld. AR for the appellant submitted that the Ld. CIT (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts by confirming the actions of the AO of additions made u/s 68

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)

68 of the I.T Act could not be sustained in the eyes of law and was liable to be vacated. 9. Per contra, the ld. Departmental Representative (for short ‘D.R’) relied on the orders of the lower authorities. The ld. D.R. rebutting the aforesaid contention so advanced by the counsel for the assessee submitted that a ‘bank passbook’ could safely

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

section 68 was inapplicable for assessment of such gift in assessee’s hands - Held, yes 8. Assessee’s Ground

DR. HARPRIT SINGH ,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, JALANDHAR

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.195/Asr/2018 िनधा"रणवष"/A.Y.:2011-12 िनधा"रणवष" िनधा"रणवष" िनधा"रणवष" Dr. Harprit Singh, C/O M/S. Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Orthonova Hospital, Near Nari Income-Tax, Niketan, Nakoddar Road, Central Circle –Ii, Jalandhar Jalandhar(Pb) (Pb) Pan: Acmps 7237 F अपीलाथ"Appellant अपीलाथ" ""यथ"/Respondent ""यथ" अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" ""यथ" ""यथ"

68 is well within the powers of the CIT (A). Further, the AO has rightly applied provisions of section 2(22) (e) of the Act. 8

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, JAMMU vs. M/S MOHD ASRAF SHEIKH, JAMMU

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed

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

section 68 of the income tax at 1961. He contended that the sad bank statements oblique banks certificates and affidavits submitted for the CIT (Appeals) is specifying specifically mentioned the name, address, purpose and amount paid to the assessee 8

SHRI RAVINDER SACHDEVA,AMRITSAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -5 (4), AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is allowed for statistical

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

8. The Ld. Counsel for the Assessee has reiterated the submissions made before the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi. He contended that the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer, thereby making the addition of Rs. 16,70,500/- by way of invoking the provisions of 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

section 68” 6.1 In this regard, it appears that these names and the amount have been taken from the 03 parties out of 07 are tabulated as under: Name of Person Amount Received Sh.Vinod Kumar 20,00,000/- Smt. Pawandeep Kaur 20,00,000/- Sh. Jagjit Singh 11,00,000/- 6.2 The ld. AO further observed that these parties

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

section 68” 6.1 In this regard, it appears that these names and the amount have been taken from the 03 parties out of 07 are tabulated as under: Name of Person Amount Received Sh.Vinod Kumar 20,00,000/- Smt. Pawandeep Kaur 20,00,000/- Sh. Jagjit Singh 11,00,000/- 6.2 The ld. AO further observed that these parties

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

Section 80-IA(8) - HELD THAT:- We are of the considered view that the method adopted by the Assessee for determining the arm's length price was correct, and the adjustments made by the AO were not in line with the applicable provisions of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, in this situation, and in our opinion, the addition made

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

8 Vikrant Kansal Prop. V. K. Teleservices v ITO recognition to the principles of common law jurisprudence as enshrined in the Evidence Act. Though the matter is principally factual, so that it should not give rise to any confusion, the user of one section instead of another, which may happen at times, and which is the assessee’s grievance

SATIA INDUSTRIES LIMITED,MUKTSAR, PUNJAB vs. DCIT, ACIT CIRCLE 1, BATHINDA

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Udayan Das Gupta & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 527/Asr/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2020-21

section 80-IA(8) of the Income Tax Act,1961. 4. That the AO on directions of DRP has erred in confirming arm's length price of power [transferred from specified to non-specified unit] computed by TPO at 3.875 per unit against 6.73 taken by the assessee. That DRP has erred in confirming action

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

8. We have heard the Addl. CIT D.R., perused the material on records, written submission filed by the assessee and the judgments relied upon. It is undisputed fact that books of account are rejected by invoking provisions of Section 145(3) of the Act. After rejection of books of account, keeping in mind the judicial guideline available on issue

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

8. We have heard the Addl. CIT D.R., perused the material on records, written submission filed by the assessee and the judgments relied upon. It is undisputed fact that books of account are rejected by invoking provisions of Section 145(3) of the Act. After rejection of books of account, keeping in mind the judicial guideline available on issue

SMT. SATYAWATI MARWAHA THROUGH LEGAL HEIR SH. CHANDER SHEIKHAR MARWAHA,JALANDHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal for Asstt

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

Section 68 of the Act and without considering the facts that no books of accounts have been maintained by the assessee. 7. That the appellant craves the leave to add, modify, amend or delete any of the grounds of appeal at the time of hearing and all the above grounds are without prejudice to each other.” The facts

SMT. SATYAWATI MARWAHA THROUGH LEGAL HEIR SH, CHANDER SHEIKHAR MARWAHA,JALANDHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal for Asstt

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

Section 68 of the Act and without considering the facts that no books of accounts have been maintained by the assessee. 7. That the appellant craves the leave to add, modify, amend or delete any of the grounds of appeal at the time of hearing and all the above grounds are without prejudice to each other.” The facts

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

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

8. That the Ld. CIT(A) has misdirected himself in sustaining the valuation of Jewellery under section 69B of the Act at market price ruling on the date of search which should have been at the cost price of the jewellery. 9. That the Learned CIT(A) has grossly failed to give fair consideration on the judicial pronouncement relied