ITAT Chandigarh Bench
6,746 judgments
ANUPAMA GUPTA,CHANDIGARH vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, CHANDIGARH
SHRI LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)
MUKESH KUMAR,LUDHIANA vs ITO WARD 2(1),, LUDHIANA
SHRI LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)
SHIV SHANKER,YAMUNA NAGAR HARYANA vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 5 YAMUNANAGAR, YAMUNANAGAR HARYANA.
SHRI LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)
RANJIT BHULLAR SINGH,GARHSHANKAR vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(INTL. TAXATION), CHANDIGARH
SHRI LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 450/CHD/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Ranjit Bhullar Singh (Individual), S/o Banta Singh VPO Dhamai, Post Office Dhamai Garshankar, Tehsil Garshankar, Distt. Hoshiarpur 144532 स्थायी लेखा सं./ PAN NO: JYFPS8356R अपीलार्थी/Appellant The DCIT, (international Vs. Taxation), Chandigarh प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent ( VIRTUAL HEARING ) निर्धारिती की ओर से/Assessee by : None राजस्व की ओर से
GAJAMFAR ALI,ROHRU vs INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD RAMPUR, RAMPUR
us.2. The Ld. AR, drawing attention to assessee's background, pleaded for adjudication of appeal on merits. It has been stated that quantum appeal is already pending for adjudication before Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. Sr. DR pleaded for dismissal of the appeals.3. Considering the fact that the quantum appeal would have direct bearing on impugned penalties as levied by Ld. AO u/s 271(1)(c) & u/s 271A, these penalties are to be adjudicated on merits in the light of quantum appeal. Therefore, the appe
GAJAMFAR ALI,ROHRU vs INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD RAMPUR , WARD RAMPUR
us.2. The Ld. AR, drawing attention to assessee's background, pleaded for adjudication of appeal on merits. It has been stated that quantum appeal is already pending for adjudication before Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. Sr. DR pleaded for dismissal of the appeals.3. Considering the fact that the quantum appeal would have direct bearing on impugned penalties as levied by Ld. AO u/s 271(1)(c) & u/s 271A, these penalties are to be adjudicated on merits in the light of quantum appeal. Therefore, the appe
GAJANFAR ALI,SHIMLA vs INCOME TAX OFFICER RAMPUR , WARD RAMPUR
us.2. The Ld. AR, drawing attention to assessee's background, pleaded for adjudication of appeal on merits. It has been stated that quantum appeal is already pending for adjudication before Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. Sr. DR pleaded for dismissal of the appeals.3. Considering the fact that the quantum appeal would have direct bearing on impugned penalties as levied by Ld. AO u/s 271(1)(c) & u/s 271A, these penalties are to be adjudicated on merits in the light of quantum appeal. Therefore, the appe
SURENDER KUMAR,KURUKSHETRA vs INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 3 KURUKSHETRA, KURUKSHETRA
SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)
JASBIR SINGH SARAO AND SONS,CHANDIGARH vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH
the expiry of 30 days from the date of filing of return of income. Since the e-verification was done beyond that time limit, the benefit of new regime was denied to the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the action on the ground that the return was e-verified on 24-08-2023 which was after due date of return of income being 31-07-2023. The Ld. CIT(A) referred to Notification No.05 of 2022 dated 29-07-2022 issued by DGIT (Systems), CBDT providing that the date of verification was to be consid
MANMOHAN SINGH,LUDHIANA vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), LUDHIANA
Tribunal. The Ld. AR raised pertinent legal issues and also assailed impugned addition on merits. It has been stated that the assessee is in a position to substantiate the sources of cash deposit. The Ld. Sr. DR has pleaded for dismissal of the appeal.
DILBAG SINGH,KAITHAL vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, KAITHAL
Tribunal.
PRAKASH CHAND,SHIMLA vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, SHIMLA
us.3. The Ld. AR has placed on record computation of agricultural income. It could be seen that the assessee has earned gross agricultural income of Rs.86.01 Lacs and incurred various expenditure on account of labor charges, salary, packing charges, fertilizers & chemicals and finally, computed agricultural income of Rs.47.30 Lacs. The transaction-wise detail along with source of payment has also been furnished. In its reply to Ld. CIT(A) on 04-09-2024, the assessee had furnished details of
BALJIT SINGH,VPO TIBBA DISTT. SANGRUR vs INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, MLK, MALERKOTLA
Tribunal.
JARNAIL SINGH,S/O MOHINDER SINGH vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, NABHA, NEAR RAILWAY STATION
Tribunal.
HARYANA SARASWATI HERITAGE DEVELOPMENT BOARD,PANCHKULA, HARYANA vs DCIT/ACIT(E)(CIRCLE-2) CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH
HIMANI MADAN,SHIMLA vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, SHIMLA, SHIMLA
SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)
JAGIR KAUR,CHANDIGARH vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 5(5), CHANDIGARH , CHANDIGARH
SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)
ELL AAR MEMORIAL EDUCATIONAL TRUST,HARYANA vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH
SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)
KUSUM MITTAL,SANGRUR vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - SANGRUR, SANGRUR
SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)
AKBAR ALI, MANDI GOBINDGARH,MANDI GOBINDGARH vs JAO THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2 MANDI GOBINDGARH, MANDI GOBINDGARH
SHRI LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 868/CHD/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2019-20 Akbar Ali, H. No. 140, Ram Nagar, Sector 9, Block B Mandi Gobindgarh, Punjab 147301 स्थायी लेखा सं./ PAN NO: AWUPK6417B अपीलार्थी/Appellant The JAO, बनाम | The ITO, Vs. Ward 2, Mandi Gobindgarh प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent ( PHYSICAL HEARING ) निर्धारिती की ओर से/Assessee by : Sh. Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से/ Revenue by : Sh. Vivek Va
