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

68, read with section 153A, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Cash credit (Unexplained cash deposits) -Assessment year 2017-18 - Certain

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 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

M/S ACTIVE TOOLS (P). LIMITED,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -II, JALANDHAR

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

unexplained 69/69A.” ITA 260/Amr/2019 19 29. From the reading of Dev Raj Hi Tech Machines Ltd (supra) ,income surrendered by the assessee on account of the excess cash found, stock difference etc were treated by the Tribunal as a business income against which the assessee was allowed to set off various losses and proceedings under section 263 were quashed

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

unexplained cash credits under section 68 of the Income Tax Act. 5 Farukh Ahmad Zeb v. ITO 4. Being aggrieved

SH. PUNEET SEHDEV PROP,JAMMU vs. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, JAMMU

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

unexplained credit within the meaning of Sec. 68 of the Act. On appeal, the CIT(A) concurred with the view taken by the A.O and upheld the addition made by the A.O u/s 68 of the Act. Shri Puneet Sehdev Vs. ITO, Ward 2(2), Jammu – A.Y 2008-09 & A.Y 2009-10- ITA No. 305/Asr/2015 & ITA No. 05/Asr/2013 Shri Puneet

SH. PUNEET SEHDEV PROP;,JAMMU vs. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER,, JAMMU

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

unexplained credit within the meaning of Sec. 68 of the Act. On appeal, the CIT(A) concurred with the view taken by the A.O and upheld the addition made by the A.O u/s 68 of the Act. Shri Puneet Sehdev Vs. ITO, Ward 2(2), Jammu – A.Y 2008-09 & A.Y 2009-10- ITA No. 305/Asr/2015 & ITA No. 05/Asr/2013 Shri Puneet

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAMMU vs. SH. PUNEET SEHDEV, PROP., JAMMU

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

unexplained credit within the meaning of Sec. 68 of the Act. On appeal, the CIT(A) concurred with the view taken by the A.O and upheld the addition made by the A.O u/s 68 of the Act. Shri Puneet Sehdev Vs. ITO, Ward 2(2), Jammu – A.Y 2008-09 & A.Y 2009-10- ITA No. 305/Asr/2015 & ITA No. 05/Asr/2013 Shri Puneet

PUNEET SAHDEV,JAMMU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAMMU

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

unexplained credit within the meaning of Sec. 68 of the Act. On appeal, the CIT(A) concurred with the view taken by the A.O and upheld the addition made by the A.O u/s 68 of the Act. Shri Puneet Sehdev Vs. ITO, Ward 2(2), Jammu – A.Y 2008-09 & A.Y 2009-10- ITA No. 305/Asr/2015 & ITA No. 05/Asr/2013 Shri Puneet

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

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

unexplained cash credit under Sec. 68, which was subjected to the special tax rates under Sec. 115BBE of the Act. On appeal, the CIT(A) taking cognizance of the returns filed by the assesee in the preceding years, observed, that as the assessee had in the preceding years also reflected income from tuition and art work, thus on an estimate

SHRI JASHANDEEP SINGH SIDHU,BATHINDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(3), BATHINDA

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

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

credits, whereas section 69 concerns the unexplained investments. At the outset, the area of both these sections are clear and distinct. Section 68 attracts where there are unexplained cash

SHRI JASHANDEEP SINGH SIDHU,BATHINDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- 1 (3), BATHINDA

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

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

credits, whereas section 69 concerns the unexplained investments. At the outset, the area of both these sections are clear and distinct. Section 68 attracts where there are unexplained cash

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

68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Cash credit (Scope of provision) - Assessment year 2016-17 - Assessing Officer made addition of certain I.T.A. Nos. 250 & 359/Asr/2025 10 Assessment Year: 2018-19 amount to assessee's income on account of unsecured loan treading same as unexplained cash credit under section

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

68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Cash credit (Scope of provision) - Assessment year 2016-17 - Assessing Officer made addition of certain I.T.A. Nos. 250 & 359/Asr/2025 10 Assessment Year: 2018-19 amount to assessee's income on account of unsecured loan treading same as unexplained cash credit under section

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)

68 (Mumbai Trib.) wherein it was held as under: - 'I have carefully considered the rival submissions. In the present case the addition has been I made by the income tax authorities by treating the cash deposits in the bank account as an unexplained cash credit within the meaning of section

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"

unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act. Without prejudice to the above, the AO further observed that if at any stage

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

unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act can be considered for set-o against losses under various heads

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

section 68, it is respectfully submitted, is a deeming provision, which deems certain cash credits, found in the books of the assessee, as income of the assessee, which remains unexplained

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 of the Act in the face of overwhelming evidence regarding the existence, credit worthiness and the 5 Asstt. CIT v. Mohd. Ashraf Sheikh genuineness of the credit transactions, cannot be countenanced. It is a fact on record, which has not even been disputed by the AO that the appellant deals in real estate in terms of selling land