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

68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - (Chandigarh - Trib.) IN THE Cash credit (Bank deposits) - Assessment ITAT CHANDIGARH year 2008-09 - Assessee made deposits of BENCH 'A' certain sum in bank account - He made various withdrawals from bank account - Gurpreet Singh Assessing Officer in assessment order had v. Income-tax Officer* given a list of cash deposits in bank account

SHIROMANI GURDWARA PARBANDHAK COMMITTEE vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I,

In the result the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenav.S. Cit – I Shirmoni Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee Amritsar Teja Singh Mundri Hall Sri Amritsar Pan:Aants1981K (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 80G(2)(B), the Central Government notifies places of public worship owing to their historical, archaeological, or artistic importance. The following Gurudwaras due to their historical importance have been notified u/s 80G(2)(B) by the Central Government. 1. Gurudwara Harminder Sahib, SO 1974, Dated 19.06.1965. 2. Gurudwara DukhNiwaran Sahib, SO 885, Dated 31.12.1975. 3. Gurudwara Shri Hemkunt

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

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

85,000/- that was made by the A.O under Sec. 68 of the Act, and thereafter had been scaled down to an amount of Rs. 2,35,000/- by the CIT(A). As observed by us hereinabove, the aforesaid additions made/sustainted by the A.O/CIT(A) under Sec. 68 of the Act are in context of the cash deposits

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

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

85. Copy of the order dismissing the SLP of the revenue is at page no. 13 of the paper book. [Setting aside without specific directions amounts to annulment as has been held by the Calcutta High Court in the case of Fu Sheen Tannery vs. ITO reported at 262 ITR 456]. Attention is also drawn to the view expressed

SHRI JASBIR SINGH ,AMRITSAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, AMRITSAR

In the result, appeal of the assesseeITA No

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No. 133/Asr/2022 Assessment Year: 2019-20

85,398/-(49,13,866/- - 12,28,468/-) is being added to the income of the assessee as undisclosed investment from unexplained sources in the form of excess stock as per provisions of Section 69 of the I.T. Act. Amount of Rs.12,28,468/- on account of surrendered excess stock and Rs.20,364/- on account of surrendered excess shown

KAMAL RAHIL,JALANDHAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

85,000/- was received by the assessee through sub-agent on behalf of the student for payment of college fees. The explanation of the assessee related cash deposit is stand explained under section 68

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3), ABOHAR, INCOME TAX OFFICE, ABOHAR vs. RAJ KUMAR, ABOHAR

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

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

Section 69A r.w.s. 115BBE for unexplained bank deposits. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating the facts mentioned in the assessment order dated 08.04.2021 that the addition of Rs. 85,60,85,879/- (on a/c of cash and non-cash deposits) included the amount of unexplained cash deposits also. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred

M/S. AMAN TRADING CORP.,JAMMU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAMMU

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

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 255/(Asr)/2013 Assessment Year: 1997-98

section 68; the onus to prove the genuineness of the cash credits being on the assessee (PB pgs. 80-84). The matter was taken up again for assessment vide issue of notices u/ss. 143(2)/142(1) on 07.06.2001 and, further, the assessee required to produce five (5) creditors vide order-sheet entry dated 20.06.2001. However, despite several notices

DASHMESH TIMBER AND FURNITURE HOUSE,AJNALA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, AMRITSAR

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

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Krinwant Sahay

85,319/- as against Rs. 40 lacs, surrendered by the assessee but taxed u/s 69B r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act. The Id. counsel contended that the excess stock found during the survey was business income out of business carried out by the assessee but not declared in the books of account. Since, the excess stock found during the survey primarily

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

85 29.06.2013 respectively. Therefore it is held that Sh. Amandeep Singh is creditworthy to deposit Rs 50,00,000/- and Rs. 50,00,000/- in his KCC premium cash credit account in Kotak Mahindra Bank on 26.06.2013 & 29.06.2013 respectively. 13 I.T.A. No. 10/Asr/2020 Dy. CIT v. Raj Rani Arora Moreover it has been explained by the appellant in written submissions

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

85,40,036/- vide order under section 143(3) read with section 144C(13) in consequence of directions of DRP u/s144C(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. That the Assessing Officer (AO) has erred in making an addition of Rs. 6,66,54,028/- by reducing the sales value of steam and power

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

85,311/- which included the alleged cash sale which was main part of cash in hand as on 09.11.2016. 3. That Ld. A.O. unlawfully made and worthy CIT(A) has unlawfully confirmed addition of Rs. 9,00,000 being the amount of fresh unsecured loan although the same had been received through regular banking system from genuine, identifiable & credit worthy

BALDEV SINGH S/O GAJJAN SINGH,TARN TARAN vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,, TARN TARAN

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

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A. No. 178/Asr/2016 Assessment Year: 2010-11

68,900/- Sundry creditors 2,26,611/- Sundry creditors (sq. up) 6,85,900/- Open. Balance (ICICI) 1,90,896/- Total: 18,83,196/- The same did not find favour with the Assessing Officer (AO), as the said detail was not supported by any documentary evidence. As against capital, the assessee had made advances, which were yielding him interest income

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(5), JALANDHAR vs. SHRI NITIN PAL SINGH , JALANDHAR

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

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

68 and 69 of Income-tax Act, 1961. 6. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on the facts in the case in ignoring the section of the Assessing Officer, in his remand report, wherein he pointed out a number: of credit entries which did not tally with submission of the assessee and were not verifiable

SHRI. NITIN PAL SINGH ,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(3), JALANDHAR

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

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

68 and 69 of Income-tax Act, 1961. 6. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on the facts in the case in ignoring the section of the Assessing Officer, in his remand report, wherein he pointed out a number: of credit entries which did not tally with submission of the assessee and were not verifiable

YADAV RICE MILLS,MUKTSAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, BATHINDA, BATHINDA

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

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

68 of the Act. 3. That CIT(A) further gravely erred in upholding the estimated addition of Rs. 4,510/- on account of alleged commission paid by resort to provisions of Section 69C of the Act. 3. The facts borne out from records are that the assessee is a partnership firm engaged in the business of milling and sales

SH. VARINDER KUMAR SOUL,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3(2), JALANDHAR

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 451(Asr)/2017 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Pan: Cvips 5218R

85,830/- as against Rs. 98,000/- per the return filed u/s. 139 as well as that in response to notice u/s. 148, referring to page 2 of the assessment order. Once assessment is reopened for reassessment, it was open for the AO to examine any other aspect of assessment indicating under-assessment of any income that comes

SH. YASH PAUL KHANNA PROP.,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JALANDHAR

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

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

section quoted by the AO is 143(3) dated 03.02.2006, we find from records that in this case the original assessment was framed on 23.02.2024, u/s 143(3) on a total income of Rs.1,35,690/- (as against return income of Rs.1,06,150/- ), which has been subsequently set aside by the ld. CIT, Jalandhar-II, by invoking