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

TDS benefit to be given did not lead to escapement of income Mere fact that matters need to be verified and examined further could never be reason good enough to believe that income had escaped assessment and re- open assessment proceedings was bad in law-Assessee's Appeals allowed. b. Commissioner of Income Tax v/s Batra Bhatta Company, High Court

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR vs. SHRI JATINDER SINGH BEDI, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue, ITA No 90/Asr/2020 is dismissed

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

TDS was deducted at source. Only 2 kanal property was purchased in later from the party by the assessee. The copy of sale deed dated 21.05.2018 is annexed in APB pages 39 to 44. The copy of the financial statement duly filed related to Baba Shrichand Educational Society which is depicted that the amount debited against lease from

SHRI BHAVNOOR SINGH BEDI,JALANDHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue, ITA No 90/Asr/2020 is dismissed

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

TDS was deducted at source. Only 2 kanal property was purchased in later from the party by the assessee. The copy of sale deed dated 21.05.2018 is annexed in APB pages 39 to 44. The copy of the financial statement duly filed related to Baba Shrichand Educational Society which is depicted that the amount debited against lease from

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR vs. SHRI BHAVNOOR SINGH BEDI, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue, ITA No 90/Asr/2020 is dismissed

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

TDS was deducted at source. Only 2 kanal property was purchased in later from the party by the assessee. The copy of sale deed dated 21.05.2018 is annexed in APB pages 39 to 44. The copy of the financial statement duly filed related to Baba Shrichand Educational Society which is depicted that the amount debited against lease from

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR vs. SHRI JATINDER SINGH BEDI , JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue, ITA No 90/Asr/2020 is dismissed

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

TDS was deducted at source. Only 2 kanal property was purchased in later from the party by the assessee. The copy of sale deed dated 21.05.2018 is annexed in APB pages 39 to 44. The copy of the financial statement duly filed related to Baba Shrichand Educational Society which is depicted that the amount debited against lease from

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR vs. SHRI BHAVNOOR SINGH BEDI, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue, ITA No 90/Asr/2020 is dismissed

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

TDS was deducted at source. Only 2 kanal property was purchased in later from the party by the assessee. The copy of sale deed dated 21.05.2018 is annexed in APB pages 39 to 44. The copy of the financial statement duly filed related to Baba Shrichand Educational Society which is depicted that the amount debited against lease from

SHRI BHAVNOOR SINGH BEDI,JALANDHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue, ITA No 90/Asr/2020 is dismissed

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

TDS was deducted at source. Only 2 kanal property was purchased in later from the party by the assessee. The copy of sale deed dated 21.05.2018 is annexed in APB pages 39 to 44. The copy of the financial statement duly filed related to Baba Shrichand Educational Society which is depicted that the amount debited against lease from

SH. SADA RAM CHAWLA,TARN TARAN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2), TARNTARAN

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

Bench: Sh. Ravish Sood & Dr. M. L. Meena

TDS has not been deducted but the assessee had not shown commission income from Reliance Communication Ltd. Therefore, the Assessing Officer has added the difference of Rs.17,89,917, i.e., (Rs.34,25,717 (-) Rs.16,35,800/-) to the income of the assessee as undisclosed

SHRI VIJAY KUMAR,GARHSHANKAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, HOSIARPUR

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

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

undisclosed income, overlooking fact that source of deposits need not necessarily income of the assessee and, therefore action of AO -was not justified — yes." It is only his assumption and presumption and hence the action of the AO deserves to be vacated on this score. The assessee in this regard also drawn our attention to the judgments where

DEEPAK KAKAR,FEROZPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(1), FEROZPUR

In the result, Assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Udayan Das Gupta & Shri Krinwant Sahayxsftrtot U/Ita No. 409/Asr/2024 / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Deepak Kakar, The Ito, <Shw Mohalla Dhanwala Wala, Ward-3(1), Closed Street, Ferozepur Ferozepur City, Punjab 152002 Tt./Pan No: Ctzpk1764P H^L^Ff/Respondent 3| 4] Cl |'4F/Appellant ( Hybridhearing ) <Ivjcj?! $/ Revenue By :Shri Davinder Pal Singh, Sr. Dr 3{N Tf/Assessee By : Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, Ca

undisclosed income of the appellant. That on facts, circumstances and legal position 5. of the case, Worthy CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of Ld. AO in not allowing the credit of TDS

SH. AMRINDER SINGH DHIMAN,NAKODAR vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE PHAGWARA, PHAGWARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

undisclosed sources and added to his returned income.” Against the order of the ld. AO the petitioner filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The AR of the assessee produced additional evidence under Rule 46A of the Income-tax Rule, 1962 before the ld CIT(A). The ld CIT(A) asked for the remand report & the ld AO submitted

SMT. SATVIR KAUR W/O SH. SHINDER SINGH,FEROZEPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

undisclosed interest on savings/deposits. The appellant’s case was reopened after recording reasons and obtaining necessary approval from Pr Commissioner of Income Tax, Bathinda that the assessee had deposited cash of Rs. 60,00,000/- in her savings bank account maintained with the Oriental Bank of Commerce during the financial year 2010-11 and that no return had been filed

JAGTAR SINGH BRAR PROP. JAGTAR SINGH SADHU SINGH,BAGAPURANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3, MOGA, MOGA

In the result, the penalty imposed u/s 271(1) (c) amounting to Rs

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Khettra Mohan Roy

TDS deducted accordingly), which resulted in an apparent non -disclosure of gross contract receipts to the tune of Rs.1.73 crores, as per the return filed. 4. The assessee explained the difference that the said transport bill amount of Rs.1.73 crores has been actually received on 17th April, 2015, and the same has also been considered in the gross receipts

INCOME-TAX OFFICER, BATHINDA vs. SH. MOHAN LAL, BATHINDA

Bench: Sh. T. S. Kapoor & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 170/(Asr)/2015 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Pan: Aajpl8560B Income Tax Officer, Vs. Sh. Mohan Lal Prop. Ward-1(2), Bathinda. M/S Ramji Dass Bko, Vill. Bhagiwander, Tehsil Talwandi Sabo, Distt. Bathinda. (Appellant) (Respondent)

Income Tax Officer, Vs. Sh. Mohan Lal Prop. Ward-1(2), Bathinda. M/s Ramji Dass BKO, Vill. Bhagiwander, Tehsil Talwandi Sabo, Distt. Bathinda. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sh. S. S. Kanwal (D. R.) Respondent by: Sh. P. N. Arora (Adv.) Date of Hearing: 05.10.2017 Date of Pronouncement: 03.01.2018 ORDER PER T. S. KAPOOR (AM): This is an appeal filed

M/S DICKSON ELECTRONICS,SRINAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -3(1), SRINAGAR

In the result, ground of assessee related addition of interest amount to

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

TDS) in ITA no. 486 to 489/ASR/2014 date of pronouncement of order 12.06.2015. The respectful observations of the above-mentioned judgment in para 2 is extracted as follows: “2. As before the Authorities below, the assesse maintains that the PR was not liable to deduct tax at source under section 194H of the Act. The assesse has placed reliance

SHRI SUBASH GUPTA,JAMMU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, JAMMU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

TDS reflection u/s 194 IA of the Act 61, as reported in income tax portal in form 26AS amounting to Rs.1,81,175/-, which was alleged to be one percentage of the total purchase value of immovable property during the year, which according to the AO has remained undisclosed

MESERS VETERAN ENGINEERS INDUSTRIAL ESTATE ZAKURA,SRINAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFICER WARD 3 (3), SRINAGAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

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

TDS deducted against these payments in the credit available as prepaid taxes in Form 26AS. Thus, the assessee has under stated gross receipt by an amount of Rs.7,77,499 (29,60,250/- to 21,82,751/-) and the AO applied net profit rate of 8% on these understated receipt of Rs.7,77,499/- to correctly workout the understated income

SHRI GURIQBAL SINGH,GURDASPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -1, BATALA

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

Bench: Sh. N. S. Saini & Sh. N. K. Choudhryita No. 782/Asr./2017 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Sh. Guriqbal Singh, Vs Income Tax Officer, Prop. M/S K. P. Rice Mills, Ward-1, Razdan Road, Qadian, Batala Gurdaspur-143516, Punjab (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aitps1996E Assessee By : Sh. P. N. Arora, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Shivani Bansal, Dr Date Of Hearing :22.02.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.03.2019 Order Per N. S. Saini: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Cit(A)-I, Amritsar Dated 31.10.2017. 2. Ground Nos. 1, 2 & 5 Are General In Nature & Hence Does Not Require Separate Adjudication By Us.

undisclosed sources and added back to the total income. In the written submissions filed by the appellant in the appeal proceedings it was reiterated that Sh. Tejinder Pal Singh had paid a sum of Rs. 20 lakh as loan on 11.8.2012 to the assessee by means of cheaque which was not m doubt. This amount was never returned back during