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

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

92. The same figure was separately shown in computation of total income at page 4. Hence section 115BBE is not attracted. No stock register is maintained and this fact has also been given in the tax audit report by auditor in the form 3CB. That the Ld. AO had issued various questionnaires along with statutory notice

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

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

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

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JAMMU vs. M/S FILL INDUSTRIES,, SRINAGAR

In the result appeal of the assessee ground no 4 to 4

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

92,163/- ANDRS. 3,10,253/- U/S 32 OF THE ACT. ( ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 & 08-09) 15.1 The Hon’ble Tribunal vide its order dated 27.6.2012 has deleted the identical disallowance of depreciation, wherein it has been held as under: “22 We have heard the rival contentions and perused the facts of the case. This is not under dispute

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JAMMU vs. M/S FIL INDUSTRIES,, SRINAGAR

In the result appeal of the assessee ground no 4 to 4

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

92,163/- ANDRS. 3,10,253/- U/S 32 OF THE ACT. ( ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 & 08-09) 15.1 The Hon’ble Tribunal vide its order dated 27.6.2012 has deleted the identical disallowance of depreciation, wherein it has been held as under: “22 We have heard the rival contentions and perused the facts of the case. This is not under dispute

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JAMMU vs. M/S FILL INDUSTRIES,, SRINAGAR

In the result appeal of the assessee ground no 4 to 4

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

92,163/- ANDRS. 3,10,253/- U/S 32 OF THE ACT. ( ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 & 08-09) 15.1 The Hon’ble Tribunal vide its order dated 27.6.2012 has deleted the identical disallowance of depreciation, wherein it has been held as under: “22 We have heard the rival contentions and perused the facts of the case. This is not under dispute

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMMU vs. M/S. FIL INDUSTRIES LTD, SRINAGAR

In the result appeal of the assessee ground no 4 to 4

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

92,163/- ANDRS. 3,10,253/- U/S 32 OF THE ACT. ( ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 & 08-09) 15.1 The Hon’ble Tribunal vide its order dated 27.6.2012 has deleted the identical disallowance of depreciation, wherein it has been held as under: “22 We have heard the rival contentions and perused the facts of the case. This is not under dispute

M/S FIL INDUSTRIES LTD,SRINAGAR vs. THE ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SRINAGAR

In the result appeal of the assessee ground no 4 to 4

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

92,163/- ANDRS. 3,10,253/- U/S 32 OF THE ACT. ( ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 & 08-09) 15.1 The Hon’ble Tribunal vide its order dated 27.6.2012 has deleted the identical disallowance of depreciation, wherein it has been held as under: “22 We have heard the rival contentions and perused the facts of the case. This is not under dispute

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JAMMU vs. M/S FIL INDUSTRIES,, SRINAGAR

In the result appeal of the assessee ground no 4 to 4

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

92,163/- ANDRS. 3,10,253/- U/S 32 OF THE ACT. ( ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 & 08-09) 15.1 The Hon’ble Tribunal vide its order dated 27.6.2012 has deleted the identical disallowance of depreciation, wherein it has been held as under: “22 We have heard the rival contentions and perused the facts of the case. This is not under dispute

M/S FIL INDUSTRIES LTD,SRINAGAR vs. THE DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SRINAGAR

In the result appeal of the assessee ground no 4 to 4

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

92,163/- ANDRS. 3,10,253/- U/S 32 OF THE ACT. ( ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 & 08-09) 15.1 The Hon’ble Tribunal vide its order dated 27.6.2012 has deleted the identical disallowance of depreciation, wherein it has been held as under: “22 We have heard the rival contentions and perused the facts of the case. This is not under dispute

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JAMMU vs. M/S FILL INDUSTRIES,, SRINAGAR

In the result appeal of the assessee ground no 4 to 4

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

92,163/- ANDRS. 3,10,253/- U/S 32 OF THE ACT. ( ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 & 08-09) 15.1 The Hon’ble Tribunal vide its order dated 27.6.2012 has deleted the identical disallowance of depreciation, wherein it has been held as under: “22 We have heard the rival contentions and perused the facts of the case. This is not under dispute

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JAMMU vs. M/S FIL INDUSTRIES,, SRINAGAR

In the result appeal of the assessee ground no 4 to 4

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

92,163/- ANDRS. 3,10,253/- U/S 32 OF THE ACT. ( ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 & 08-09) 15.1 The Hon’ble Tribunal vide its order dated 27.6.2012 has deleted the identical disallowance of depreciation, wherein it has been held as under: “22 We have heard the rival contentions and perused the facts of the case. This is not under dispute

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMMU vs. M/S. FIL INDUSTRIES LTD, SRINAGAR

In the result appeal of the assessee ground no 4 to 4

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

92,163/- ANDRS. 3,10,253/- U/S 32 OF THE ACT. ( ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 & 08-09) 15.1 The Hon’ble Tribunal vide its order dated 27.6.2012 has deleted the identical disallowance of depreciation, wherein it has been held as under: “22 We have heard the rival contentions and perused the facts of the case. This is not under dispute

PANKAJ JINDAL CONTRACTOR,MANSA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-I, BATHINDA, BATHINDA

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Physical Hearing) I.T.A. No. 695/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S Pankaj Jindal Contractor, Vs. Dcit-Circle-1, Near Vidya Bharti School, Bathinda. Mansa. [Pan:-Aajfp8008L] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Sudhir Sehgal, Adv. Respondent By Sh. Charan Dass, Sr. Dr

68 on a/c of difference in ledger balance with one Ramesh Kumar & Co). 4. The matter carried in first appeal has been dismissed by the ld. CIT(A) by upholding both the additions on merits by observing as follows: “In view of the above facts, it is pertinent to note that the assessee has made cash payments on various dates

SH. BASANT KUMAR,FAZILKA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-II, BATHINDA

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

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 514/(Asr)/2017 Assessment Year: 2014-15

92 Taxman 259 (P&H), being by the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court. The Hon'ble Court in that case returned the reference u/s. 256(1) in-as-much as the tribunal had decided the question of applicability or otherwise of section 68 in the facts and circumstances of the case, as indeed we have in the instant case

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 no. 3