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 Act. Section 115 BBE shall, consequently, becomes superfluous. The assessee, therefore, who has challenged this aspect per Gd. 6 before us (Gd. 5 before the ld. CIT(A)), ought to have the benefit of the floor level qua this sum, or any other for 7 Sant Baba Bhag Singh M. C. Society v. Dy. CIT that

SMT. SATYAWATI MARWAHA THROUGH LEGAL HEIR SH, CHANDER SHEIKHAR MARWAHA,JALANDHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal for Asstt

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

68 of the Act and without considering the facts that no books of accounts have been maintained by the assessee. 7. That the appellant craves the leave to add, modify, amend or delete any of the grounds of appeal at the time of hearing and all the above grounds are without prejudice to each other.” The facts of the case

SMT. SATYAWATI MARWAHA THROUGH LEGAL HEIR SH. CHANDER SHEIKHAR MARWAHA,JALANDHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal for Asstt

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

68 of the Act and without considering the facts that no books of accounts have been maintained by the assessee. 7. That the appellant craves the leave to add, modify, amend or delete any of the grounds of appeal at the time of hearing and all the above grounds are without prejudice to each other.” The facts of the case

HINDVEE SMALL FINANCE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 1(3) JAMMU, JAMMU

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

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Krinwant Sahay

section 68 of the Act were incorrectly invoked in the present case to make the impugned addition of Rs.50,90

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

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

Section 68 of the Act. Therefore, on this count itself the impugned addition Rs.2,35,000/- deserves to be deleted. We thus ‘set aside’ the order of the CIT(A) and delete the addition of Rs.2,35,000/- sustained by him under Sec.68 of the Act. As we have quashed the addition of Rs. 2,35,000/- that

SMT. KIRAN MAHAJAN,JAMMU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2) JAMMU

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

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 319 & S.A. 15/(Asr)/2017 Assessment Year: 2012-13

section 69, 69A, etc. can in fact be invoked only where the Revenue discharges the primary onus on it to show the assessee to be owner of the relevant asset. As explained in Chuharmal v. CIT [1988] 172 ITR 250 (SC), the same seek to provide statutory recognition to the principles of common law jurisprudence as enshrined

SHRI AMARJEET SINGH,JAMMU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2 (1), JAMMU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

90,887/-under section 68 of the Income Tax Act 1961 arbitrary without any justification although the total cash

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 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

section 68. Again, the period for which the liability had remained unpaid, i.e., as at the end of the relevant year, etc., are all matters of fact, again, emphasizing, if one was still necessary, that the matter as to whether a liability subsists as at the year-end or not is essentially factual, even as clarified in several decisions

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 MOHD MANZOOR,RAJOURI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -2 (3), JAMMU

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

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

90,960/- . The profits earned pre demonetization period and post demonetization period is tabulated as under:- I.T.A. No.166/Asr/2022 12 Assessment Year: 2017-18 TABLE F Particulars Amount Profit @8% Sales Up to 08.11.2016 6510000 520800 Sale from 09.11.2016 to 31.03.2017 1390960 111277 Total 7900960 632077 7.7That the appellant is an individual and is engaged in running the business

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

90-100), holding as under: ‘Regarding the addition on account of bogus sale of godown at Rs.6 lakhs, the appellant has given the detailed account of the circumstances in which the head of the family was killed and entire family had to shift from Srinagar to Jammu. He has also given the details of how distress sale was made

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

90,000/- was deposited in Punjab & Sind Bank and Rs.1,23,68,499/- cash was deposited in HDFC Bank. Considering the disclosed business income Rs.3,10,540/-, the addition was confirmed amount to Rs.1,95,47,959/- and the assessment was completed u/s 144 of the Act. The assessee prayed that the entire amount of deposit was not properly reconciled

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

90 taxmann.com 20 (Delhi Trib.), in which, it has been held as under:- “Section 2(22) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Deemed dividend (Loans or advances to shareholders) - Assessment year 2008- 09 - Whether where Commissioner(Appeals) made addition to assessee's income under section 2(22)(e) in respect of amounts received from various group companies

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

90 taxmann.com 20 (Delhi Trib.), in which, it has been held as under:- “Section 2(22) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Deemed dividend (Loans or advances to shareholders) - Assessment year 2008- 09 - Whether where Commissioner(Appeals) made addition to assessee's income under section 2(22)(e) in respect of amounts received from various group companies

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

section 68 to apply or be invoked. Further, allowing credit for the full value of the opening capital as on 01.4.2009 (Rs.5,10,889), would amount to giving credit for the opening bank balance (Rs.1,90

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

90,735/- and Rs.2,81,000/- as mentioned by the authorities which is factually incorrect. He has argued that the assessee has not maintained books of account and where the assessee did not maintain the books of account and declared an income u/s 44AD. The provisions of section 68

RANA IQBAL SINGH,V. DOSANJH KALAN, PHILLAUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, PHAGWARA

In the result, appeal of the Assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri Udayan Das Gupta & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 496/Asr/2024 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Rana Iqbal Singh, बनाम The Ito, Ward-1, Village Dosanjh Kalan, Assessment Unit, Tehsil Phillaur Delhi Distt. Jalandhar 144502 स्थधयी लेखध सं./Pan No: Ctops8735D अपीलधथी/Appellant प्रत्यथी/Respondent

section 68 of the Act ii). It was argued by the Ld. Counsel that notice u/s 142(1) alongwith detailed questionnaire was issued and it was alleged that the said assessee had advanced an amount of Rs. 9,54,000/- which was denied by the assessee that he has not entered into any ‘Iqrarnama' with Sh. Vijay Kumar