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

section 68. Copy of the decision is enclosed at page no. 91. The view of the Delhi High Court in this case has been endorsed by the Supreme Court as the SLP of the revenue was dismissed and stands reported at 380 ITR 64 (Statute). Copy of the order is enclosed at page no. 92. In view

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

section 68. Copy of the decision is enclosed at page no. 91. The view of the Delhi High Court in this case has been endorsed by the Supreme Court as the SLP of the revenue was dismissed and stands reported at 380 ITR 64 (Statute). Copy of the order is enclosed at page no. 92. In view

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)

86 of the Act 1925 of the Gurdwaras are independent legal entities and some of them are having separate registration 80G of the Act. Gurudwaras notified u/s 80G(2)(B). Under 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

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

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

86 to 89. The action of the assessing officer in rejecting the contents of the affidavit was not justified and the addition made should have been deleted by the CIT(A). The CIT(A) to make good the fatal defect in the order, directed the assessing officer to record the statement of the persons who gave the affidavits. This action

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

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee is allowed

86,384/-\n15,60,000/-\nNIL\n22.\nThat before invoking the provisions of section 263, it is very much necessary\nto adhere to the twin conditions as embedded in section 263. In the circumstances\nwhere only one of the conditions is satisfied and the condition is not dealt with, in\nsuch circumstances the proceedings initiated vide section

SH. SURINDER KUMAR MAHAJAN, GOVT. CONTRACTOR,,PATHANKOT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,, PATHANKOT

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is allowed

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

86,691/- u/s 68 of the Act without appreciating the facts of the case and ignoring the turnover of Rs.52,13,825/-, the sales effected during the second part of the financial year in particular. The ld. counsel for the assessee has submitted 4 Surinder Kumar Mahajan v. ITO that the assessee has provided the details of the cash deposits

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

86,000/ has remained unexplained. Further, no evidence in respect of transfer of property to Sh. Charanjit Singh (as stated in the statement by Sh. Shinder Pal Singh) is filed and also no evidence in support of the fact that the sale proceeds were not claimed by Sh. Charanjit Singh (being land on his name) viz. his bank account statement/confirmation

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

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 68 r.w.s. 115BBE) was rightly made to the returned income of the assessee. Therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 2,41,62,056/- u/s 68 r.w.s. 115BBE on account of Unexplained Sundry Creditors. 5. The Appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, vary any or all the above grounds of appeal

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, FARIDKOT, BSNL BUILDING vs. M/S VOHRA SOLVEX PVT. LTD, SADIQ ROAD

In the result, C.O. filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Krinwant Sahay

86,710/- i.e., (1.2% only) instead of 100% addition which should have been made and confirmed u/s 69C of the Act. In support of his argument, he relied on the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of N.K Proteins Ltd. v. DCIT [2017] 84 taxmann.com 195 (SC) in which the Hon’ble Apex Court has dismissed

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, SAMBA vs. SH. ASHOK KUMAR SHARMA, SAMBA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in Ground nos

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No.475/Asr/2016 Assessment Year: 2013-14

Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Cash credits - Assessment year 2000-01 - Assessee had taken loans from various persons - Assessing Officer made addition treating said loans as undisclosed income of assessee on ground that creditworthiness of creditors could not be established by assessee - On appeal, Tribunal found that assessee had placed on record affidavits of creditors

DR.HARPRIT SINGH,JALANDHAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , JALANDHAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is illegal and bad in law. b) That on the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. Assessing Officer has grossly erred in law in making addition of Rs. 18,959/- as undisclosed interest income. Addition made is illegal and bad in law. c) While estimating income, no credit for withdrawals made

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAMMU vs. SH. PUNEET SEHDEV, PROP., JAMMU

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

68. Ground of appeal No. 6 is allowed. 7. DISALLOWANCE U/S 40A(3) : Shri Puneet Sehdev Vs. ITO, Ward 2(2), Jammu – A.Y 2008-09 & A.Y 2009-10- ITA No. 305/Asr/2015 & ITA No. 05/Asr/2013 Shri Puneet Sehdev Vs. ITO, Ward 2(2), Jammu –A.Y 2009-10- ITA No.579/Asr/2016 11 ITO, Ward 2(2), Jammu Vs. Puneet Sehdev

PUNEET SAHDEV,JAMMU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAMMU

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

68. Ground of appeal No. 6 is allowed. 7. DISALLOWANCE U/S 40A(3) : Shri Puneet Sehdev Vs. ITO, Ward 2(2), Jammu – A.Y 2008-09 & A.Y 2009-10- ITA No. 305/Asr/2015 & ITA No. 05/Asr/2013 Shri Puneet Sehdev Vs. ITO, Ward 2(2), Jammu –A.Y 2009-10- ITA No.579/Asr/2016 11 ITO, Ward 2(2), Jammu Vs. Puneet Sehdev

SH. PUNEET SEHDEV PROP;,JAMMU vs. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER,, JAMMU

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

68. Ground of appeal No. 6 is allowed. 7. DISALLOWANCE U/S 40A(3) : Shri Puneet Sehdev Vs. ITO, Ward 2(2), Jammu – A.Y 2008-09 & A.Y 2009-10- ITA No. 305/Asr/2015 & ITA No. 05/Asr/2013 Shri Puneet Sehdev Vs. ITO, Ward 2(2), Jammu –A.Y 2009-10- ITA No.579/Asr/2016 11 ITO, Ward 2(2), Jammu Vs. Puneet Sehdev

SH. PUNEET SEHDEV PROP,JAMMU vs. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, JAMMU

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

68. Ground of appeal No. 6 is allowed. 7. DISALLOWANCE U/S 40A(3) : Shri Puneet Sehdev Vs. ITO, Ward 2(2), Jammu – A.Y 2008-09 & A.Y 2009-10- ITA No. 305/Asr/2015 & ITA No. 05/Asr/2013 Shri Puneet Sehdev Vs. ITO, Ward 2(2), Jammu –A.Y 2009-10- ITA No.579/Asr/2016 11 ITO, Ward 2(2), Jammu Vs. Puneet Sehdev

SHRI GAURAV NARULA ,FEROZPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE , AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeal of the

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

68,240/- during the assessment proceeding. The addition was made in two heads; i) cash I.T.A. No.619 & 434/Asr/2018 4 &I.T.A. No.435/Asr/2018 deposit in bank amount of Rs.4,09,500/-. ii) amount of Rs.2,86,250/- on account of investment in the property & the same as unexplained investment. The assessee in appeal proceeding and also before the ITAT also challenged