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

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

Section 68 only covers within its purview "sum found credited in the book of an assessee". Therefore the addition made in respect of the credits appearing in the bank account which is not a part of the books of accounts was not justified and deserves to be deleted on this score also [2nd para at page

SHRI MANJIT SINGH S/O SHRI.GURDEV SINGH KHERA,MOGA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER -II, MOGA

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

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

Section 68 of the Act in the case of the Appellant as the Appellant had never maintained any books of Accounts for the year under consideration. 7. That the Appellant craves leave to add/alter any of the grounds of Appeal before or during the course of Appellate Proceeding.” 2. Brief fact of the case is thatthe assessment was completed

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

section 68 of the act are satisfied with regard to loan*'of Rs 1,00,00,000/- received by the appellant from Sh. Amandeep Singh in the year under consideration and no addition of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- is called for u/s 68 of the act in respect of loan from Sh. Amandeep Singh and the same

SHRI SURJIT SINGH,NAWANSHAHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , NAWANSHAHAR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee ITA No

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. Nos. 89 To 91/Asr/2022 Assessment Years: 2000-01, 1999-2000 & 2000-01

87,180/- for the alleged unexplained investment in land, even in disregard to the order of Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of one Jagtar Singh, already followed by her predecessor to delete the addition. 6. That assessee’s most plausible explanation, filed with corroborative evidence, seeking deletion of the entire additions made, ought to have been

SHRI NAVRAJ SINGH S/O SHRI. SURJIT SINGH,NAWANSHAHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , NAWANSHAHAR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee ITA No

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. Nos. 89 To 91/Asr/2022 Assessment Years: 2000-01, 1999-2000 & 2000-01

87,180/- for the alleged unexplained investment in land, even in disregard to the order of Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of one Jagtar Singh, already followed by her predecessor to delete the addition. 6. That assessee’s most plausible explanation, filed with corroborative evidence, seeking deletion of the entire additions made, ought to have been

SHRI SURJIT SINGH,NAWANSHAHR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , NAWANSHAHR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee ITA No

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. Nos. 89 To 91/Asr/2022 Assessment Years: 2000-01, 1999-2000 & 2000-01

87,180/- for the alleged unexplained investment in land, even in disregard to the order of Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of one Jagtar Singh, already followed by her predecessor to delete the addition. 6. That assessee’s most plausible explanation, filed with corroborative evidence, seeking deletion of the entire additions made, ought to have been

LATE SMT. MOHINI PURI THROUGH,JAMMU vs. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, JAMMU

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

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A. No. 76/Asr/2013 Assessment Year: 2004-05

section 68, which had been invoked, could not be in the absence of the assessee maintaining any books of account. The Revenue’s case, on the other hand, is that transaction of sale of shop cannot be accepted in the absence of any evidence of the said sale. Even accepting that the sale deed was, on account

SHRI MOHAMMAD ABBAS ASHRAF,SRINAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -1, SRINAGAR

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

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

section 68 of the Act. The assessee’s counsel argued that the assessment was reopened solely based on suspicion rather than a formation of belief, citing the ITAT Delhi Bench case of Bir Bahadur Singh Sijwali v, l.T.O. as precedent. The court found that the AO had not conducted any investigation to ascertain the source of the impugned cash

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

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

section 250(4)] through banks instead of disposing off the appeal for non-appearance without adjudicating on merits. 7. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, or alter any of the grounds of appeal.” I.T.A. No.22/Asr/2023 4 Assessment Year: 2014-15 2. The case was called for hearing, first, the ld. DR filed an adjournment petition before the bench

MESERS GANESH RICE MILLS,MUKTSAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-II, BATHINDA

In the result the appeal of the assessee ITA No

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

section 68/69A - These deposits were traced to transaction of paddy weighing 2509.65 qtls. shown as sale to ‘G’ by assessee - It was finding of both Assessing Officer and Commissioner (Appeals) that source of these deposits was traceable to above paddy which was not actually sold to ‘G’ but was actually milled by assessee and disposed of in open market

SHRIMATI NANDINI SHARMA ,AMRITSAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, AMRITSAR

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

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

68,459/- as per Books of Account. Thus, an excess stock of Rs.6,26,500/- was found. The assessment for the Ay 2019-20 was completed u/s 143(3) by invoking the provisions of section 115BBE on excess stock amounting to Rs. 6,26,500/- as alleged by the department. Further, the assessee has also offered

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, AMRITSAR vs. SHRI BHUPINDER SINGH. M/S NOVELTY SWEETS, AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

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

68,052.00 To Wages 10,52,220.00 To Gross Profit 2,02,14,758,69 By Gross Profit 2,02,14,758.69 To Expenses 1,01,87,181.05 By Misc. income 1,99,937.56 By Round Off 18.08 To Net Profit 3,52,27,553.28 By income offered

DCIT, CIRCLE-1, BATHINDA vs. DMR BUILDERS PVT LTD, BATHINDA

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed being devoid of merits

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Hybrid Hearing) I.T.A. Nos. 292 & 293/Asr/2024 Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18

68 of the Act for the assessment year 2016-17. 5. In view of the above facts, I have reasons to believe that amounts of Rs. 5,71,37,870/- , which was chargeable to tax in the case of the assessee for the assessment year 2016- 17 has escaped assessment within the meaning of section

DCIT, CIRCLE-1, BATHINDA vs. DMR BUILDERS PVT LTD, BATHINDA

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed being devoid of merits

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Hybrid Hearing) I.T.A. Nos. 292 & 293/Asr/2024 Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18

68 of the Act for the assessment year 2016-17. 5. In view of the above facts, I have reasons to believe that amounts of Rs. 5,71,37,870/- , which was chargeable to tax in the case of the assessee for the assessment year 2016- 17 has escaped assessment within the meaning of section

MESERS SHRI SWAMI SHANKARNATH PARVAT CHARITABLE AND WELFARE TRUST ,KAPURTHALA vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the assessee appeal is allowed

Bench: Sh. Laliet Kumar & Dr. M. L. Meenai.T.A. No. 602/Asr/2018 Assessment Year: N.A.

68,816/- in F.Y: 2017/18. These are meager expenses. No adverse opinion has been drawn by him on this observation. It is submitted that Income & Expenditure Account for F.Y: 2016-17 appears at Page 20 of the Paper Book and for F.Y: 2017-18 at Page 23 of the Paper Book. The details of various expenses incurred by the Society

M/S. OHRI & BATRA SHOWBIZ PRIVATE LIMITED,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, JALANDHAR

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

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

68 of the 'Act', in the hands of the assessee company. 16. That the A.O on the basis of misconceived facts, premature findings and self-suiting inferences, without affording reasonable opportunity to the assessee company, had made an addition of Rs. 7,66,500/- towards alleged 'Unsecured loans' and 'deposits' in the hands of the assessee company. 17. That

M/S. OHRI & BATRA SHOWBIZ PRIVATE LIMITED ,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, JALANDHAR

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

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

68 of the 'Act', in the hands of the assessee company. 16. That the A.O on the basis of misconceived facts, premature findings and self-suiting inferences, without affording reasonable opportunity to the assessee company, had made an addition of Rs. 7,66,500/- towards alleged 'Unsecured loans' and 'deposits' in the hands of the assessee company. 17. That