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

unexplained investment of assessee [In favour of assessee] 6. 2015] 61 taxmann.com 425 Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - (Chandigarh

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

unexplained cash credit under section 68 - As per business model adopted by assessee, it was in continuous need for payment of cash at various points of time and hence, it had to withdraw cash in order to satisfy its business requirements - Assessee had furnished entire details of cash received from customers containing name and address of customers, PAN, and invoice

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

68 has to be assessed under section 56. In the case before us, source of unexplained cash credits is not known and hence they cannot be linked to any known source/head of income including income from other sources. In order to constitute 'income from 'other sources', the source, namely, the "other sources", has to be identified. Income from unexplained

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

section 68, made an addition qua unexplained cash credit. Now whether the ld. CIT(A) has been correct in converting this charge of “unexplained cash credit” u/s 68 of the Act to that of “unexplained investment

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

section 68, made an addition qua unexplained cash credit. Now whether the ld. CIT(A) has been correct in converting this charge of “unexplained cash credit” u/s 68 of the Act to that of “unexplained investment

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

unexplained investment in bank account as per provisions of section 68 of the I.T. Act, 1961. Penalty proceedings under section

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

investments were profits of assessee-firm - Tribunal held that it could not be assessed as income of assessee in terms of section 68 but might be assessed in individual hands of partners, if it is permissible under section 69 - Whether reasons assigned by Tribunal for deleting additions were directly referable to provisions of section 68 and there was no cogent

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

unexplained credit liable to tax under the special provisions of section 115BBE read with sec. 68 of the Income Tax Act. 4. That while confirming the above additions, the ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the special provisions of section 115BEE read with section 68/69 were not applicable to the case of trust, inasmuch as, once the donations

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

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

68 of the Act, which thereafter had been subjected to tax by the A.O under Sec. 115BBE of the Act. Apart from that, the assessee also assailed the treating of 600 grams of gold jewellery (out of 1100 grams) owned by the assessee as an unexplained investment under Sec. 69B of the Act. However, the CIT(A) after deliberating

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

unexplained creditors u/s 68 of the Act is made by the AO against the unverified sundry creditors after considering the facts of the case and material brought on record which remained uncontroverted by the appellant assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) has not appreciated the facts of the case in view of the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme

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"

68 of the Act. However, same was sustained by the CIT (A) under section 69 of the Act on the ground that investment are not recorded in books of accounts. Since the change of section, amounts to enhancement without giving opportunity of being heard the assessee, hence, no sustainable in law. 3. Since above grounds of appeal related to addition

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

unexplained cash credit under section 68 - Whether since amount of loan received by assessee was returned within same financial year, appellate authorities had rightly deleted addition made by Assessing Officer - Held, yes [Paras 9 and 11] [In favour of assessee] Judgment of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of PCIT vs. c. Ambe Tradecorp (P.) Ltd. as reported

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

unexplained cash credit under section 68 - Whether since amount of loan received by assessee was returned within same financial year, appellate authorities had rightly deleted addition made by Assessing Officer - Held, yes [Paras 9 and 11] [In favour of assessee] Judgment of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of PCIT vs. c. Ambe Tradecorp (P.) Ltd. as reported

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

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

unexplained investment as per the provisions of section 69 of the I. T. Act. He argued that no addition for undisclosed investment can be made merely relying on the third party statement and evidence which has been retracted as recorded in the back of the assessee; that the evidences relied upon by the AO for framing assessment were never confronted

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

invested in only one share. 5. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Hon'ble CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld. AO in making an addition of Rs.15,40,998/-u/s 68 of the Act on account of credits in bank account considering as alleged unexplained money

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

invested in only one share. 5. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Hon'ble CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld. AO in making an addition of Rs.15,40,998/-u/s 68 of the Act on account of credits in bank account considering as alleged unexplained money

SHRI JASBIR SINGH ,AMRITSAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, AMRITSAR

In the result, appeal of the assesseeITA No

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No. 133/Asr/2022 Assessment Year: 2019-20

unexplained as per provisions of Section 68 of the I.T.Act and being added to the Income of the assessee as deemed income as per provisions of Section 68 of the I.T.Act to be taxed as per provisions of Section 115BBE of the I.T.Act. Penalty proceedings u/s 271 AAC of the I.T.Act, 1961 is separately being initiated being deemed income

SHRI MOHAMMAD ABBAS ASHRAF,SRINAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -1, SRINAGAR

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

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

unexplained investment on account of cash deposits. 2.Addition of Rs 351216.00 as 8% of profits on balance credits u/s 44AD of the Act Further the entire re-assessment proceedings are bad in law, as no notice u/s 148 of the Act stands served on the assessee, besides the reopening is purely based on AIR information. The Ld. CIT (A) confirmed

SH. VIKRANT KANSHAL,BATHINDA vs. THE ICNOMET-AX OFFICER,, BATHINDA

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

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 367/Asr/2014 Assessment Year: 2008-09

investment, inventory, bank account, expenditure, etc., that is to be explained. Further, the AO’s action is to be examined with reference to his power to act in the manner he does, i.e., to do what he has done, and if he has the requisite power to do so, it is immaterial if the source of that power