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

68-74). AELPG5810P I.T.A. No.117/Asr/2022 15 Assessment Year: 2017-18 2. The PCIT was also apprised with the issue that the investment made by the partner has duly been verified by the respective assessing officer vide questionnaire dated 09.12.2019 for AY 2017-18 [Refer Page no. 75-77]. The relevant question raised by the assessing officer in the questionnaire (Relevant

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

7 (e) Pr. CIT & Others vs. Meeta Gutgutia - 395 ITR 526 [Delhi High Court]: It was held that for the years for which no incriminating documents were found, the invocation of section 153A was without any legal basis. Copy of the decision is enclosed at page no. 12 to 23 [please see para no. 72 at page

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

7 (e) Pr. CIT & Others vs. Meeta Gutgutia - 395 ITR 526 [Delhi High Court]: It was held that for the years for which no incriminating documents were found, the invocation of section 153A was without any legal basis. Copy of the decision is enclosed at page no. 12 to 23 [please see para no. 72 at page

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

7 (e) Pr. CIT & Others vs. Meeta Gutgutia - 395 ITR 526 [Delhi High Court]: It was held that for the years for which no incriminating documents were found, the invocation of section 153A was without any legal basis. Copy of the decision is enclosed at page no. 12 to 23 [please see para no. 72 at page

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

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

68 are "may be charged to tax" which clearly indicates that it is not necessary to make an addition in every case and situation. We draw your attention to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Smt. P.K Noorjehan reported at 237 ITR 570 wherein it was held while dealing with section 69 that

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

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

94,959/- was found as against stock of Rs. 48,68,459/- 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

M/S BLUE CITY TOWNSHIP & COLONIZERS,AMRITSAR. vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,, AMRITSAR.

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

7. Being aggrieved by the notice under section 148 dated 15-12-1981 for re- assessment as well as the Order of the ITO dated 24-3-1986, the assessee filed appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) [for short, 'the CIT(A)'], which was partly allowed. The assessee contended that since it received a sum of Rs.11

SHRI ABDUL MAJID KAW ,SRINAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- 3 (1), SRINAGAR

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

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

94,200/- u/s 44AD of the Act. The case was selected for scrutiny. The assessee could not made the compliance due to the fact that the entire valley was under curfew and strikes was continued from July to December 2016. The ld. AO while framing assessment had made addition amount of Rs.6,41,726/- u/s 68

MESERS SHREE BHAGWATI COTTON TRADERS,BATHINDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD 1 (2), BATHINDA

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

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

94 taxmann.com325 (SC) held: I.T.A. No. 479/Asr/2018 13 &I.T.A. No. 480/Asr/2018 “Section 69C of the income-tax Act, 1961 - Unexplained expenditure (Bogus purchases) -Assessing Officer had disallowed some expenditure treating purchases as bogus and made addition - High Court in impugned order noted that purchases made by assessee- trader were duly supported by bills and payments were made by account

INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD 1 (2), BATHINDA vs. MESERS SHREE BHAGWATI COTTON TRADERS ,, BATHINDA

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

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

94 taxmann.com325 (SC) held: I.T.A. No. 479/Asr/2018 13 &I.T.A. No. 480/Asr/2018 “Section 69C of the income-tax Act, 1961 - Unexplained expenditure (Bogus purchases) -Assessing Officer had disallowed some expenditure treating purchases as bogus and made addition - High Court in impugned order noted that purchases made by assessee- trader were duly supported by bills and payments were made by account

SHRI DEEPAK SETIA, JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR

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

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No.112/Asr/2023 Assessment Year: 2019-20

94,000/- Other discrepancies 14,23,000/- Total 29,00,000/- 4.1 The ld. AR in argument submitted that the entire amount was declared in the return filed u/s 139(1) and paid the tax in normal rate and treated the income as business income. The ld. AR relied on the order of Sh. Harish Sharma

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

94,05,033/- Business Profit @ 8% 752402 Deposit demonetization Income period Cash 09.11.2016 to 11,24,000/- Unexplained Unexplained 1124000 Deposit 31.12.2016 Money u/s Money u/s 69A 69A Total 1876402 7.3The additions made vide assessment order passed u/s 144 are bad in law as, the same is made on the basis of glaring mistakes ignoring the inter-bank transfers

SHRI DARPAN JAIN,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX WARD - 1(1), JALANDHAR

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

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

7. We have heard the rival contention, perused the material on record and the impugned order. Admittedly, the assessee has received loan of Rs. 52 lacs from Smt. Anita Chadha during the year under consideration. The AO has made an addition of the said amount of the loan of Rs.52 lacs as unexplained cash credit u/s 68

SHIROMANI GURDWARA PARBANDHAK COMMITTEE vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I,

In the result the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenav.S. Cit – I Shirmoni Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee Amritsar Teja Singh Mundri Hall Sri Amritsar Pan:Aants1981K (Appellant) (Respondent)

7,27,17,732.00 8,67,06,385.11 97629965.84 10,94,78,247.00 TOTAL(B)…… 9,69,93,531.24 9,46,16,819.61 12,57,90,268.31 16,20,26,547.26 DM Aidfor Natural Calamity 28,53,114.00 75,59,482.00 12536115.00 9833379.00 Aidfor SocialAwareness 5,70,21,474.00 76,14,822.00 18077590.00 7940694.00 Teaching & Education

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, SAMBA vs. SH. ASHOK KUMAR SHARMA, SAMBA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in Ground nos

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No.475/Asr/2016 Assessment Year: 2013-14

7. The ld. AR argued that in this ground another addition of Rs.8,96,411/- on account of difference in transactions Rs.15,04,595/- and Rs.2,76,892/- made on account of unexplained credits on the basis of corrupt computerised data. The ld. AR relied on the appeal order. The relevant paragraphs of page 94 of appeal order is reproduced

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, FARIDKOT, BSNL BUILDING vs. M/S VOHRA SOLVEX PVT. LTD, SADIQ ROAD

In the result, C.O. filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Krinwant Sahay

7. Now, the department is in appeal before the Tribunal on the grounds contained in Form No. 36. 8. The ld. DR argued that the ld. first appellate authority was not justified in limiting or restricting the addition to only Rs.5,86,710/- i.e., (1.2% only) instead of 100% addition which should have been made and confirmed

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

7. Having regard to the statutory limit within which the appropriate authority has to act and his failure to act in conformity with the principles of natural justice, we do not think we can remand the matter to the appropriate authority. We must set his order aside. 8. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed. The judgment and order under appeal