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

68 made to income of assessee was to be deleted - Held, yes [Paras 13 to 16] [In favour of assessee] 7. The ld. CIT-DR vehemently argued & relied on the order of revisional authority. But unable to bring any contrary fact in relation to the submission of the assessee. 8. We heard the rival submission and relied on the documents

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

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 of the case

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

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 of the case

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

83 to 90.Pr. CIT vs. Kurele Paper Mills P. Ltd reported at 380 ITR 571 (Delhi High Court): It was held that no incriminating material with regard to hare capital issued was found during the course of search and hence the assessing officer was not justified in invoking section 68

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

83 to 90.Pr. CIT vs. Kurele Paper Mills P. Ltd reported at 380 ITR 571 (Delhi High Court): It was held that no incriminating material with regard to hare capital issued was found during the course of search and hence the assessing officer was not justified in invoking section 68

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

83 to 90.Pr. CIT vs. Kurele Paper Mills P. Ltd reported at 380 ITR 571 (Delhi High Court): It was held that no incriminating material with regard to hare capital issued was found during the course of search and hence the assessing officer was not justified in invoking section 68

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

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. 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

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3, SRINAGAR vs. M/S TRUMBO CEMENT INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED , SRINAGAR

In the result, the Ground no-1 of the Revenue for ITA No

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

section 68 of the Act in view of the fact that the identity of the persons is not in doubt as they are all directors of the appellant company. As the credentials of the directors has already been verified during assessment proceedings, the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) are not acceptable.” I.T.A. No.123/Asr/2020 4 I.T.A. No.124/Asr/2020 I.T.A. No.124/Asr/2020

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3, SRINAGAR vs. M/S TRUMBO CEMENT INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED, SRINAGAR

In the result, the Ground no-1 of the Revenue for ITA No

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

section 68 of the Act in view of the fact that the identity of the persons is not in doubt as they are all directors of the appellant company. As the credentials of the directors has already been verified during assessment proceedings, the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) are not acceptable.” I.T.A. No.123/Asr/2020 4 I.T.A. No.124/Asr/2020 I.T.A. No.124/Asr/2020

SH. BARAT PAL SOOD,,PHAGWARA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,, PHAGWARA

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

83]. Relief was allowed by the ld. CIT(A) after appreciating the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Kishinchand Chellaram vs. CIT reported at 125 ITR 713. Attention is also drawn to the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Gulati Industrial Fabrication Pvt. Ltd reported

NEERAJ KUMAR SETHI,DELHI vs. ITO, NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE (NFAC)

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

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

section 68 whereas there was no sum found credited in books of assessee for which no explanation or unsatisfactory explanation was offered by Assessee. The above ground raised by the appellant is incorrect as the order has been passed correctly by following all the principles of natural justice. Hence, this ground is dismissed. 5.3 Ground No. 3-That

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

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee is allowed

83 (SC) in which it has been stated\nas under: -\nSection 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Revision - Of orders prejudicial to interests of\nrevenue Assessment year 1983-84 - Whether in order to invoke section 263 Assessing\nOfficer's order must be erroneous and also prejudicial to revenue and if one of them is\nabsent, i.e., if order

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

83 Taxmann.com 15 (ASRTrib) Section 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Unexplained moneys (Surrender of Income, effect of) - Assessment year 2010-11 - Where additional income surrendered by assessee-company in search proceedings was declared as business income and same was accepted by Assessing Officer after considering reply of assessee, revision 8 I.T.A. No. 102/Asr/2022 Satvir Kaur

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

83 taxmann.com 246 (Mumbai - Trib.) “Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Cash credit (Cash) - Assessment year 2009-10 - Where

SHRI DEEPAK SETIA, JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR

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

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No.112/Asr/2023 Assessment Year: 2019-20

83,000/- Short stock 12,94,000/- Other discrepancies 14,23,000/- Total 29,00,000/- 4.1 The ld. AR in argument submitted that the entire amount was declared in the return filed u/s 139(1) and paid the tax in normal rate and treated the income as business income. The ld. AR relied on the order of Sh. Harish

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

83 taxmann.com 246 (Mumbai - Trib.) IN THE ITAT MUMBAI BENCH ' J'Jaspal Singh Sehgal v. Income-tax Officer WD 21(2)(1), Mumbai* Section 68