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

68 of proving the cash credit were satisfied by the assessee the addition should have been deleted rather than upholding the same u/s 56(1)(vii) of the Act. 4 That even otherwise on facts too, the CIT(A) has erred in holding that the Gift to the daughter by his father during the year which came from the Bank

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

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

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

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

SHRI OM PARKASH LEGAL HEIAR SMT PUSHPA VERMA,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(3), JALANDHAR

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A. No. 756/Asr/2017 Assessment Year: 2014-15

89 DTR 265 (Del). In fact, the liability in both accounts stood discharged in the following year, i.e., f.y. 2014-15. The fact that the said discharge is in cash, a fact found relevant by the ld. CIT(A), is immaterial. The impugned order, he would continue, is even otherwise inconsistent as the first appellate authority has deleted another addition

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

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

Section 68 of the Act, where any amount is found credited in the accounts of the assessee relating to any previous year, the same can be charged to income tax as the income of the assessee of that year where the explanation offered by the assessee about the nature and its source is not satisfactory in the opinion

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

Section 68 of the Act, where any amount is found credited in the accounts of the assessee relating to any previous year, the same can be charged to income tax as the income of the assessee of that year where the explanation offered by the assessee about the nature and its source is not satisfactory in the opinion

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

Section 68 of the Act, where any amount is found credited in the accounts of the assessee relating to any previous year, the same can be charged to income tax as the income of the assessee of that year where the explanation offered by the assessee about the nature and its source is not satisfactory in the opinion

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

RAJ KUMAR & CO,NAWANSHAHR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NAWANSHAHR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

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

section 68 in respect of unexplained cash credit. Hon'ble High Court had held that there is nothing in law which prevents Assessing Officer in an appropriate case in taxing both sundry credit, source and nature of which is not satisfactorily explained, and business income estimated by him after rejecting books of account of assessee as unreliable. The case

ANBHAO PARKASH S/O DARSHAN LAL, VILLAGE VEERE WALA KALAN, FARIDKOT,FARIDKOT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(4), FARIDKOT, JURISDICTIONAL ASSESSING OFFICER, ITO WARD 1, FARIDKAOT, FARIDKOT

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

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

89 pages) which consist of the copy of the written submission filed before the ld. CIT(A), copy of remand report, copy of reply to remand, copy of agreement of sale of agricultural land against which advance of Rs. Ten lakhs received by assessee , along with affidavits furnished by two witness to the said agreement (a) Mr. Baldev Singh

SH. MANINDER SINGH CHEEMA,HOSHIARPUR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, HOSHIARPUR

In the result, the assessee appeal is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Laliet Kumar & Dr. M. L. Meenai.T.A. No. 702/Asr/2013 Assessment Year: 2009-10

68,84,212/- has been included in closing stock. .As such charge to trading account is. only. of Rs. 14,15,788/- & not Rs. 83,00,000/-. b) That amount of Rs. 83,00,000/- & 83,00,000/- & another amount surrendered total Rs. 1,20,00,000/-.have been duly declared in the return as detailed below:- Sr. No. Description

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

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