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

undisclosed income of assessee and accordingly, impugned addition made by Assessing Officer was not justified.” R.B. Jessaram Fatehchand (Sugar Dept.) v. Commissioner of Income- tax ii. [1970] 75 ITR 33 (Bombay) HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY “Section 145 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [Corresponding to section 13 of the Indian Income-Tax Act, 1922] - Method of accounting - Rejection of accounts

M/S SHANKAR RICE & GENERAL MILLS ,MOGA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE, MOGA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

undisclosed income u/s 68 of the Act and computed the Tax liability under the provisions of section 115BBE of the Act. 10. In the light

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 which, as afore-noted, requires proving the nature and source of the receipt lest it may be assessed as income. Section 115BBC r/w s. 13(7), however, provides for tax liability in case of an anonymous donation, i.e., from an undisclosed

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

Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Cash credit taxmann.com (Agricultural income) - Assessment year 2011-12 - 325 Certain credit entries were reflecting cash deposit in (Ahmedabad - bank account of assessee - Assessee submitted that Trib.) said sum was loan taken from some parties - Said parties claimed to have generated agricultural income, but such agricultural income was not declared in their

LATE. SH. GURMAIL SINGH.S/O. LATE SH. LAL SINGH,SRI MUKTSAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -II, BATHINDA

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

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

undisclosed part of income Late Sh. Gurmail Singh v. Dy. CIT & Ors which has been unearthed during the course of survey proceedings u/s 133A of Income Tax Act. The appellant has been palpably defiant and therefore the Assessing Officer was justified in invoking penal provisions and eventually levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The contention that

LATE. SH. GURMAIL SINGH S/O. SH. LAL SINGH,SRI MUKATSAR vs. DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -II, BATHINDA

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

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

undisclosed part of income Late Sh. Gurmail Singh v. Dy. CIT & Ors which has been unearthed during the course of survey proceedings u/s 133A of Income Tax Act. The appellant has been palpably defiant and therefore the Assessing Officer was justified in invoking penal provisions and eventually levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The contention that

SH. ARSPREET SINGH . S/O. LATE. SH. GURMAIL SINGH ,MUKTSAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE .II, BATHINDA

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

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

undisclosed part of income Late Sh. Gurmail Singh v. Dy. CIT & Ors which has been unearthed during the course of survey proceedings u/s 133A of Income Tax Act. The appellant has been palpably defiant and therefore the Assessing Officer was justified in invoking penal provisions and eventually levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The contention that

SH. ARASHPREET SINGH S/O LATE SH. GURMAIL SINGH,SHRI MUKATSAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-II, BATHINDA

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

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

undisclosed part of income Late Sh. Gurmail Singh v. Dy. CIT & Ors which has been unearthed during the course of survey proceedings u/s 133A of Income Tax Act. The appellant has been palpably defiant and therefore the Assessing Officer was justified in invoking penal provisions and eventually levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The contention that

SH. ARASHPREET SINGH. S/O.LATE.SH. GURMAIL SINGH,MUKTSAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX .CIRCLE-II, BATHINDA

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

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

undisclosed part of income Late Sh. Gurmail Singh v. Dy. CIT & Ors which has been unearthed during the course of survey proceedings u/s 133A of Income Tax Act. The appellant has been palpably defiant and therefore the Assessing Officer was justified in invoking penal provisions and eventually levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The contention that

SH. ARASHPREET SINGH S/O. LATE SH. GURMAIL SINGH,MUKTSAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CERCLE- II, BATHINDA

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

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

undisclosed part of income Late Sh. Gurmail Singh v. Dy. CIT & Ors which has been unearthed during the course of survey proceedings u/s 133A of Income Tax Act. The appellant has been palpably defiant and therefore the Assessing Officer was justified in invoking penal provisions and eventually levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The contention that

LATE. SH. GURMAIL. SINGH S/O. SH. LAL SINGH,SHRI MUKAT SAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF 9INCOME TAX. CIRCLE -II, BATHINDA

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

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

undisclosed part of income Late Sh. Gurmail Singh v. Dy. CIT & Ors which has been unearthed during the course of survey proceedings u/s 133A of Income Tax Act. The appellant has been palpably defiant and therefore the Assessing Officer was justified in invoking penal provisions and eventually levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The contention that

LATE. SH. GURMAIL. SINGH. S/O. SH. LAL SINGH,SRI MUKATSAR vs. DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -II, BATHINDA

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

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

undisclosed part of income Late Sh. Gurmail Singh v. Dy. CIT & Ors which has been unearthed during the course of survey proceedings u/s 133A of Income Tax Act. The appellant has been palpably defiant and therefore the Assessing Officer was justified in invoking penal provisions and eventually levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The contention that

LATE. SH. GUMAIL SINGH . S/O. SH. LAL SINGH,MUKTSAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -II, BATHINDA

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

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

undisclosed part of income Late Sh. Gurmail Singh v. Dy. CIT & Ors which has been unearthed during the course of survey proceedings u/s 133A of Income Tax Act. The appellant has been palpably defiant and therefore the Assessing Officer was justified in invoking penal provisions and eventually levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The contention that

SH. ARASHPREET SINGH S/O. LATE SH. GURMAIL SINGH,MUKTSAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-II, BATHINDA

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

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

undisclosed part of income Late Sh. Gurmail Singh v. Dy. CIT & Ors which has been unearthed during the course of survey proceedings u/s 133A of Income Tax Act. The appellant has been palpably defiant and therefore the Assessing Officer was justified in invoking penal provisions and eventually levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The contention that

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PHAGWARA CIRCLE, PHAGWARA vs. SHRI CHUNI LAL, PHILLAUR

In the result, these appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

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

68,500/‐ on 31.03.2016. During the course of survey, assessee offered additional income amounting to Rs. 5.00 Crore, but later on at the time of filing return of income, assessee considered all the material & documents impounded during survey and declared his true and Chuni Lal Gaba v. Asstt. CIT& Ors correct income in his return of income. The disclosure

ASSIATANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX PHAGWARA CIRCLE, PHAGWARA vs. SHRI HARMESH KUMAR, PHILLAUR

In the result, these appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

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

68,500/‐ on 31.03.2016. During the course of survey, assessee offered additional income amounting to Rs. 5.00 Crore, but later on at the time of filing return of income, assessee considered all the material & documents impounded during survey and declared his true and Chuni Lal Gaba v. Asstt. CIT& Ors correct income in his return of income. The disclosure

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

Section 68. Those are: (i) identity of the investors; (ii) their creditworthiness/investments; and (iii) genuineness of the transaction. Only when these three ingredients are established prima facie, the department is required to undertake further exercise.” It has been held that merely proving the identity of the investors does 13 Asstt. CIT v. Mohd. Ashraf Sheikh not discharge the onus

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

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee is allowed

undisclosed income under garb of long term capital gain\n(LTCG) to claim exemption under section 10 (38) was based on a proposal given by\nAssessing Officer, exercise of jurisdiction under section 263 was not justified - Held, yes\n[Paras 8 and 9] [In favour of assessee]\n27.\nThe Ld AR further argued on applicability of clause(a) of explanation

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

undisclosed source deposited in bank account and is assessed to tax as his unexplained investment in bank account as per provisions of section 68 of the I.T. Act, 1961. Penalty proceedings under section 271(1 )(b) and 271(1 )(c) of the Income