SHRI RAJ KUMAR ( M/S RADHIKA SALES CORP ), AMRITSAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- 3 (3), AMRITSAR

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

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

section 145(3) on the ground that the I.T.A. No.195/Asr/2022 9 Assessment Year: 2017-18 assessee has not furnished the sales bills. That the addition of Rs 2,74,00,000/- was made u/s 68

MESERS G.G CONTINEENTAL TRADES PVT.LTD,BATHINDA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-I, BATHINDA

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

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No.189/Asr/2018 Assessment Years: 2014-15

9. Then after relying upon on various judgments specially of the M/S Bagmane Construction PvtLtd. Vs ACIT-CC-2(3)/ Bangalore, ITA 446/Bang/2010 date of pronouncement dated 20/06/2011. The relevant part from paragraph 7.5 is extracted as below: - “Thus, it is obvious that the fiction created in section 2(22)(e) only refersto pure advances or loans. Any amount

MEASAGE G. G OILS & FATS PRIVATE LIMITED,BATHINDA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE- 1 , BATHINDA

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

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No.189/Asr/2018 Assessment Years: 2014-15

9. Then after relying upon on various judgments specially of the M/S Bagmane Construction PvtLtd. Vs ACIT-CC-2(3)/ Bangalore, ITA 446/Bang/2010 date of pronouncement dated 20/06/2011. The relevant part from paragraph 7.5 is extracted as below: - “Thus, it is obvious that the fiction created in section 2(22)(e) only refersto pure advances or loans. Any amount

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

9, 2000 [Refer page no. 13-15 of judgement paper book] and the relevant portion is reproduced below: I.T.A. No.117/Asr/2022 23 Assessment Year: 2017-18 “Section 68 read with section 260A, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Cash credits - Assessment year 1989-90 Assessing Officer made additions to returned income of assessee-firm on account of unexplained cash

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

2(3) I.T.A. No.258/Asr/2022 9 Assessment Year: 2008-09 reasonable quantum of sale proceeds. ITANo. 14. Before me, the assessee furnished the details of 7732/Del/2018. agricultural land holdings, which clearly supports assessee’s AY 2010-11 claim of receipts from sale of agricultural produce. Thus, assessee’s claim that he received Rs.24,00,000 from sale of potato

M/S SANT BABA BHAG SINGH MEMORIAL CHARITABLE SOCIETY,JALANDHAR vs. D.C.I.T, CIRCLE - 1 (EXEMPTION), CHANDIGARH

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

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 432/(Asr)/2017 Assessment Year: 2014-15

68 of the Income Tax Act. 4. That while confirming the above additions, the ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the special provisions of section 115BEE read with section 68/69 were not applicable to the case of trust, inasmuch as, once the donations are held to be anonymous, the same are hit only by the provisions

MAX FINANCIAL SERVICE LIMITED ,NAWANSHAHR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is therefore partly allowed

9, 1981, CGT v. K. Ramesh (1983) 141 ITR 462 (Mad), this court preferred to adopt the figure in a balance sheet which were drawn up two or three days subsequent to the date of the gift. It may be explained that this decision was rendered by this court, not as a matter of principle but by way of avoiding

SH. FARUKH JEHAN ZEB ,SRINAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, ANANT NAG

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

9 Farukh Ahmad Zeb v. ITO 2. That the Ld. CIT(Appeals) has passed the order by ignoring the Jurisdictional ITAT bench judgment in the case of Sh. Sanjeev Kumar Vs ITO (ITA No. 445- 449/Asr/2015) inspite of the fact that the same had been made into its notice during the Appeal proceedings by the appellant(through Counsel). Although

DR. HARPRIT SINGH ,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Choudhry & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.संसंसंसं././././I.T.A No.195/Asr/2018 िनधा"रणवष"/A.Y.:2011-12 िनधा"रणवष" िनधा"रणवष" िनधा"रणवष" Dr. Harprit Singh, C/O M/S. Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Orthonova Hospital, Near Nari Income-Tax, Niketan, Nakoddar Road, Central Circle –Ii, Jalandhar Jalandhar(Pb) (Pb) Pan: Acmps 7237 F अपीलाथ"Appellant अपीलाथ" ""यथ"/Respondent ""यथ" अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" ""यथ" ""यथ"

section 68 to 69 was held to be sans and addition sustained by the CIT (A) was held to be incorrect and reversed. 9. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant material on record. We find that it is not the case of the AO that cash deposits in saving bank account with Axis Bank

SH. SATISH KUMAR,JALANDHAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,, JALANDHAR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Ravish Soodita No.105/Asr./2017 (Assessment Years: 2008-09)

2) of the I.T Act. In the course of the assessment proceedings the A.O observed that the assessee had during the period relevant to the year under consideration made a cash deposits of Rs.11,47,660/- in his saving bank account No. 0045-680574-001 maintained with Indusind bank, Jalandhar. In the absence of any explanation on the part

SHRI RAVINDER SACHDEVA,AMRITSAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -5 (4), AMRITSAR

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

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

2 is concerned, apparently when the Tribunal has found as a fact that the assessee was receiving money from the customers in hands against the payment on delivery of the vehicles on receipt from the dealer the question of such amount standing in the hooks of account of the assessee would not attract section 68 because the cash deposit

MESERS P.D SEKHSARIA TRADING COMPANY ,BATHINDA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, BATHINDA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the Stay Petition of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Sh. N. S. Saini & Sh. N. K. Choudhryita No. 331/Asr./2018 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 M/S P. D. Sekhsaria Trading Vs Dy. Commissioner Of Income Company Pvt. Ltd., 4242, Tax, Circle-I, Ground Floor, Gurudwara Singh Bathinda, Punjab Sabha Street, Bathinda, Punjab (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcp1720E Sa No. 03/Asr./2019 (In Ita No. 331/Asr./2018: Asstt. Year : 2014-15) M/S P. D. Sekhsaria Trading Vs Dy. Commissioner Of Income Company Pvt. Ltd., 4242, Tax, Circle-I, Ground Floor, Gurudwara Singh Bathinda, Punjab Sabha Street, Bathinda, Punjab (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcp1720E Assessee By : Shri. Salil Kapoor, Adv. & Shri. Sanat Kapoor, Adv. Revenue By : Shri. M. P. Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing :20.02.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.03.2019 Order Per N. S. Saini: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Cit(A), Bathinda Dated 26.03.2018. 2. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case The Addition/Disallowance Of Rs.4,69,47,808/- Made

9 SA No. 03/Asr./2019 P.D. Sekhsaria Trading Company Pvt. Ltd. have been carried out on recognized exchange after the thorough investigations of its being compliant and the other one would be set of transactions which are not certainly compliant and are in the area of doubt. 14. The CIT(A) further observed that it was held that rules

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, JAMMU vs. M/S MOHD ASRAF SHEIKH, JAMMU

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed

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

2. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) was in error in not appreciating the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of NRA Iron and Steel Pvt. Ltd., where the Apex Court while discussing genuineness of share capital laid down the general principles

THE DHAMAI COOPERATIVE AGRICULTURE SERVICE SOCIETY LIMITED,HOSHIARPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , HOSHIARPUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the appellant are allowed and the order(s) of the Kerala High Court and other authorities to the contrary are set aside

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No.273/Asr/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18

68,544/- Thus, it is clear that the assessee has parked its surplus/idle funds with the aforesaid banks and is earning huge interest income on FDRs. The assessee has claimed its entire income as deduction under section 80P of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Vide Notice under section 142(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 issued

JASDEEP KAUR CHADHA-JALANDHAR,PUNJAB vs. JAO THE DCIT CIRCLE-4 JALANDHAR, PUNJAB

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the revenue appeal is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Udayan Das Gupta & Sh. Khettra Mohan Roy

9. The ld. AO without adverting to the documents filed went to observe that assessee did not produce any of the parties. On these reasoning he made the addition u/s. 68 of Rs. 4,22,00,000/-. 10. Thus it was stated that the source in the hands of the assessee stands proved. 11. On the other hand

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR vs. M/S JASDEEP KAUR CHADHA, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the revenue appeal is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Udayan Das Gupta & Sh. Khettra Mohan Roy

9. The ld. AO without adverting to the documents filed went to observe that assessee did not produce any of the parties. On these reasoning he made the addition u/s. 68 of Rs. 4,22,00,000/-. 10. Thus it was stated that the source in the hands of the assessee stands proved. 11. On the other hand

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

Bench: Sh. Vikram Singh Yadav & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

9] [In favour of assessee] 27. The Ld AR further argued on applicability of clause(a) of explanation 2 to section 263 and relied upon the Judgment of Sh. Narayan TatuRane Vs. ITO, I.T.A. No. 2690/2691/Mum/2016, 70 taxmann.com 227 dt. 06.05.2016in which ITAT has held that what is relevant for clause (a) of Explanation 2

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

2,50,000/-). The explanation offered by the assessee was not substantiated in any manner by the assessee as is required under the provisions of section 68 of the Act. The AO had no material on record to accept the explanation that Rs 20,00,000/- was not unexplained cash credit as the primary onus cast upon the assessee

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

2,50,000/-). The explanation offered by the assessee was not substantiated in any manner by the assessee as is required under the provisions of section 68 of the Act. The AO had no material on record to accept the explanation that Rs 20,00,000/- was not unexplained cash credit as the primary onus cast upon the assessee