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

8. Further the reliance is being placed on the judgment of ITAT, Delhi Bench in the case of Saamag Developers Vs ACIT, reported in 90 taxmann.com 20 (Delhi Trib.), in which, it has been held as under:- “Section 2(22) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Deemed dividend (Loans or advances to shareholders) - Assessment year 2008- 09 - Whether where

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

8. Further the reliance is being placed on the judgment of ITAT, Delhi Bench in the case of Saamag Developers Vs ACIT, reported in 90 taxmann.com 20 (Delhi Trib.), in which, it has been held as under:- “Section 2(22) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Deemed dividend (Loans or advances to shareholders) - Assessment year 2008- 09 - Whether where

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

8. That the CIT(A) NFAC has erred in ignoring the past history of the appellant since, the cash deposit was not against the past history of the appellant. 9. That the CIT(A) NFAC has erred in confirming the order of the AO ignoring the position of law that provisions of section 68 cannot be applied in respect

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

2] [In favour of assessee]" ii. Judgment in the case of Kesharwani Sheetalaya Sahsaon v. Commissioner of Income Tax reported in [2020] 116 taxmann.com 382 (Allahabad) of HIGH I.T.A. No.117/Asr/2022 21 Assessment Year: 2017-18 COURT OF ALLAHABAD and the relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced as below: “section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Cash credits

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

2, where a person receiving such contribution does not maintain a record of the identity indicating the name and address of the person making such contribution and such other particulars as may be prescribed.’ The explanatory notes to the amendments by Finance Act, 2006, w.e.f. 01/4/2007, per which section 115 BBC was inserted in the statute book, listed

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

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

2), provisions of section 68 would apply in circumstances mentioned therein - Held, yes - Assessing Officer Thane examined bank Pass Book of assessee and treated cash [2016] 73 taxmann.com 68 deposits in bank account as unexplained cash credit (Mumbai - within meaning of section 68 and added same in Trib.) income of assessee - Whether since assessee was not maintaining

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

8 A.Y.2015-16 causing to be made such inquiry as he deems necessary, pass such order thereon as the circumstances of the case justify, including an order enhancing or modifying the assessment, or cancelling the assessment and directing a fresh assessment. . . . . . . . …………………………………………………………………………….. Explanation 2.- For the purposes of this section, it is hereby declared that an order passed y the Assessing

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

2. There are two issues by the appellant whereby objected to decision of the Ld. CIT (A) has erred by upholding the action of the AO that the reasons are recorded by the AO without application of mind to the information available on record and confirmation of quantum addition as well. There was a short delay of 8 days

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)

2) of the I.T Act. In the course of the assessment proceedings the A.O observed that the assessee had during the period relevant to the year under consideration made a cash deposits of Rs.11,47,660/- in his saving bank account No. 0045-680574-001 maintained with Indusind bank, Jalandhar. In the absence of any explanation on the part

MESERS P.D SEKHSARIA TRADING COMPANY ,BATHINDA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, BATHINDA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the Stay Petition of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Sh. N. S. Saini & Sh. N. K. Choudhryita No. 331/Asr./2018 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 M/S P. D. Sekhsaria Trading Vs Dy. Commissioner Of Income Company Pvt. Ltd., 4242, Tax, Circle-I, Ground Floor, Gurudwara Singh Bathinda, Punjab Sabha Street, Bathinda, Punjab (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcp1720E Sa No. 03/Asr./2019 (In Ita No. 331/Asr./2018: Asstt. Year : 2014-15) M/S P. D. Sekhsaria Trading Vs Dy. Commissioner Of Income Company Pvt. Ltd., 4242, Tax, Circle-I, Ground Floor, Gurudwara Singh Bathinda, Punjab Sabha Street, Bathinda, Punjab (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcp1720E Assessee By : Shri. Salil Kapoor, Adv. & Shri. Sanat Kapoor, Adv. Revenue By : Shri. M. P. Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing :20.02.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.03.2019 Order Per N. S. Saini: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Cit(A), Bathinda Dated 26.03.2018. 2. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case The Addition/Disallowance Of Rs.4,69,47,808/- Made

8 SA No. 03/Asr./2019 P.D. Sekhsaria Trading Company Pvt. Ltd. these transactions must as a part of compliance to these Act would be STT paid. 12. The CIT(A) observed that it may be noted that Section 45(5)(d) of the Act was brought on the statute book by the Finance Act 2005 w.e.f. 01.04.2006. The security

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 I.T.A. No. 263/Asr/2022 Assessment Year: 2012-13 5 which was confirmed

THE DHAMAI COOPERATIVE AGRICULTURE SERVICE SOCIETY LIMITED,HOSHIARPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , HOSHIARPUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the appellant are allowed and the order(s) of the Kerala High Court and other authorities to the contrary are set aside

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No.273/Asr/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18

68,544/- Thus, it is clear that the assessee has parked its surplus/idle funds with the aforesaid banks and is earning huge interest income on FDRs. The assessee has claimed its entire income as deduction under section 80P of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Vide Notice under section 142(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 issued

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

2. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) was in error in not appreciating the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of NRA Iron and Steel Pvt. Ltd., where the Apex Court while discussing genuineness of share capital laid down the general principles

SHRI SUKHJIT SINGH,HOSHIARPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, JALANDHAR

In the result, appeal of the assessees in ITA Nos

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

68, 69, 69A, 69B, 69C or 69D and reflected in the return of income furnished under section 139. Hence, tax on this income was to be charged under section 115BBE even if it had been declared by the assessee in the return of income. Income has been erroneously taxed at lower tax rate in this case causing prejudice

SHRI MANMOHAN SINGH KAPUR,HOSHIARPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, JALANDHAR

In the result, appeal of the assessees in ITA Nos

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

68, 69, 69A, 69B, 69C or 69D and reflected in the return of income furnished under section 139. Hence, tax on this income was to be charged under section 115BBE even if it had been declared by the assessee in the return of income. Income has been erroneously taxed at lower tax rate in this case causing prejudice

SMT HARNEET KAUR JUNEJA,JALANDHAR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1, JALANDHAR

In the result, appeal of the assessees in ITA Nos

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

68, 69, 69A, 69B, 69C or 69D and reflected in the return of income furnished under section 139. Hence, tax on this income was to be charged under section 115BBE even if it had been declared by the assessee in the return of income. Income has been erroneously taxed at lower tax rate in this case causing prejudice

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

Bench: Sh. Vikram Singh Yadav & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

8 and 9] [In favour of assessee] 27. The Ld AR further argued on applicability of clause(a) of explanation 2 to section 263 and relied upon the Judgment of Sh. Narayan TatuRane Vs. ITO, I.T.A. No. 2690/2691/Mum/2016, 70 taxmann.com 227 dt. 06.05.2016in which ITAT has held that what is relevant for clause (a) of Explanation 2

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

2. That the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the amount of loan was received from the above said parties during the year under consideration through banking channels and the same was paid back through banking channels during the same year and, as such, the confirmation of addition as made by the Ld. CIT(A) is against