ESTATE OF SH. JAGIR SINGH BHULLAR,AMRITSAR. vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, TARN TARAN

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

Bench: Shri N.K. Choudhry, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.306/Asr/2014 & 591/Asr/2015 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Estate Of Sh. Jagir Singh Bhullar Vs. Income Tax Officer, Through S. Jasbir—Singh Ward-1(3), Bhullar, Tarn Taran, E-250 Ranjit Avenue, Amritsar, Punjab. Punjab.

capital gain stands to be deleted because Ld. Assessing Officer has failed to discharge the sine qua non onus of proving the nexus of the receipt of the impugned amounts to any kind of transfer as contemplated u/s 2(47) of the Income Tax Act 1961.” 3. At the outset, the Ld. AR submitted that there is a delay

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2 (2), MUKTSAR vs. AJAIB SINGH, VILLAGE BHARU

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Krinwant Sahay(Hybrid Hearing) I.T.A. No. 354/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-13

condone the delay and admit the appeal to be heard on merits. 3. The grounds of appeal in Form No. 36 are as under: “(i) On the facts & circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting addition of Rs.3,68,15,000/- made on account of long term capital gain

SHRI AMRITPAL SINGH (PROP),JALANDHAR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- 1, JALANDHAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee ITA No

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

delay for 14 days is condoned. 3. The assessee has taken the following grounds: “1. That in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the order passed by worthy PCIT -1 is arbitrary, whimsical, bad in law and deserves to be quashed. 2. That in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the order

MOHMMAD. MUZAFFAR. BEIGH,,SRINAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(5), SRINAGAR

In the result, the grounds No

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

delay of 101 days is condoned. 3. Brief fact of the case is that the assessee’s case was reopened u/s 148 on basis of the information from Annual Information Report/Central Information Branch for investment in purchase of share/mutual funds/RBI Bonds aggregating to amount of Rs.1,79,91,721/-. The investment was made in previous years. The ld. AO during

SHRI ARNESH KUMAR SHAKAR EX. MLA,HOSHIARPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD, DASUYA

In the result, appeal of the assessee ITA No

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

delay for 683 days is condoned. 3. The assessee has taken the following grounds: “1. That neither in facts nor in law, the ld.CIT(A) was justified in upholding the validity of proceedings, wrongly initiated u/s.148 by the ld. ITO. 2. That sans any order passed by the ITO, giving effect to CIT(A) order for 2007-08, prior

BHAGAT PARKASH KAMAL SHARMA,JAMMU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -1 (1), JAMMU

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

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

capital gain for sale of land related to 1/3 share of the assessee amount of Rs.21 lacs. Being aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) had rejected the appeal of the assessee without considering the ground, only on point of limitation for delay filing of appeal. Being aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before

SHRI RAJINDER KUMAR,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1 (3), JALANDHAR

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

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No.262/Asr/2022 Assessment Year: 2012-13

delay for 139 days is condoned. 3. Brief fact of the case is that the assessment was completed u/s 144 with addition amount of Rs.12,13,420/- related long term capital gain

SHRI AMAR NATH CHOUDHARY,JAMMU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAMMU

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

delay is condoned and appeals are admitted on merits. 6. There is sole issue challenged by the appellant regarding confirmation of 10 % of the addition made by AO in respect of the sale of Flats and 10 % as against the 20% disallowance by AO in respect of the commercial open space on presumption and assumptions on identical facts

SHRI AMAR NATH CHOUDHARY,JAMMU vs. DEPUTY CMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAMMU

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

delay is condoned and appeals are admitted on merits. 6. There is sole issue challenged by the appellant regarding confirmation of 10 % of the addition made by AO in respect of the sale of Flats and 10 % as against the 20% disallowance by AO in respect of the commercial open space on presumption and assumptions on identical facts

SHRI AMAR NATH CHOUDHARY,JAMMU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRA L CIRCLE, JAMMU

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

delay is condoned and appeals are admitted on merits. 6. There is sole issue challenged by the appellant regarding confirmation of 10 % of the addition made by AO in respect of the sale of Flats and 10 % as against the 20% disallowance by AO in respect of the commercial open space on presumption and assumptions on identical facts

HARDIK BHARTI,JALANDHAR vs. ITO WARD 4(3) , JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

capital gains declared in the return and its subsequent assessment by CPC, Bengaluru (which is computer generated) without any hearing at exactly double the returned income figure. 6. As such, we proceed to dispose of this appeal considering the materials contained on records, after hearing the ld. DR who is present in the court. 7. In the instant case

SMT. ANITA RANI,JAMMU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, PATHANKOT

The appeal stand allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Udayan Das Gupta, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 246/Asr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Smt. Anita Rani Ito Pathankot Ward बनाम/ C/O Shri J.S.Bedi Pathankot 638-A, Gandhi Nagar Punjab - 145001 Vs. Jammu – 180004 "ायी लेखा सं./Pan. Aarpr-0843-D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/Appellant By : None ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Charan Dass (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12-11-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 17/11/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 1. 2012-13 Arises Out Of An Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac [Cit(A)] Dated 07-03-2024 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Ao On Best Judgment Basis U/S 144 R.W.S. 147 Of The Act On 06-12-2019. The Registry Has Noted Delay Of 298 Days In The Appeal, The Condonation Of Which Has Been Sought By The Assessee On The Strength Of Condonation Petition

condone the delay and proceed with adjudication of appeal on merits. At the time of hearing, none appeared for assessee. The Ld. Sr. DR pleaded for dismissal of the appeal. 2. Upon perusal of assessment order, it could be seen that the assessee is a teacher. Due to adverse medical conditions, the assessee and her husband sold a residential house

M/S MEHTA INSTITUTE OF EDUCATION ,LUDHIANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD (EXEMPTION), JALANDHAR

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

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

gain anything for not filing appeal in time and it is, only on account of the above said lapse of the Accounting staff that there has been delay of 8 days, which may, please, be condoned and oblige.” 3.1 The learned DR has no objection for the request of the assesse. Accordingly, the short delay of 8 days in filing

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3, SRINAGAR vs. M/S TRUMBO CEMENT INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED, SRINAGAR

In the result, the Ground no-1 of the Revenue for ITA No

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

condoned. I.T.A. No.123/Asr/2020 The revenue has taken the following grounds: “1. The Ld. CIT (A) Jammu has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 11,59,123/-made by the A.O on a/c of payments for provident fund dues^ beyond due date as provided u/s 36(l)(va). As the payments related to employees contribution towards EPF were deposited beyond

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3, SRINAGAR vs. M/S TRUMBO CEMENT INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED , SRINAGAR

In the result, the Ground no-1 of the Revenue for ITA No

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

condoned. I.T.A. No.123/Asr/2020 The revenue has taken the following grounds: “1. The Ld. CIT (A) Jammu has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 11,59,123/-made by the A.O on a/c of payments for provident fund dues^ beyond due date as provided u/s 36(l)(va). As the payments related to employees contribution towards EPF were deposited beyond

GURU TEG BAHADUR EDUCATIONAL TRUST ,JALANDHAR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ( EXEMPTIONS), CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

delay is hereby condoned and appeal is admitted on merits. 5. The CIT(Exemptions), Chandigarh vide order dated 26.03.2018 rejected the assesse application for registration u/s 12A. Aggrieved by the order of the department, the applicant filed an appeal before the Hon’ble ITAT, Amritsar. However, the Hon’ble ITAT has allowed the appeal of the assessee

SH. JASPAL SINGH S/O SH. SWARAN SINGH,AMRITSAR. vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,, AMRITSAR.

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A. No. 445/Asr/2016 Assessment Year: 2004-05

condonation application dated 11.10.2016 explains the delay as on account of the assessee having moved an application u/s. 154 before the ld. CIT(A) immediately on the receipt of the impugned order on 04.04.2016, praying that the addition could not be at Rs.14.20 2 Jaspal Singh v. ITO lacs, as confirmed, as the same, representing the price of the shop

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

delay for 441 days is condoned. 3. Brief fact of the case is that the assessee’s case was reopened u/s 148 on basis of reasons recorded after getting approval from Joint Commissioner of Income Tax. The appellant is an agriculturist and has been declaring agriculture I.T.A. No.258/Asr/2022 4 Assessment Year: 2008-09 income consistently in the returns of income

SH. INDERJEET SINGH ARORA,BATHINDA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, BATHINDA

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

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A No.310/Asr/2014 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Inderjeet Singh Arora, Vs. Ito, Ward-1(1), Standard Sweet Corner, Bathinda. Bibiwala Road, Bathinda. [Pan: Advpa 0985G] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Sh. P.N. Arora (C.A) Respondent By: Sh. Charan Das (D.R) Date Of Hearing : 22.10.2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.12.2018 Order Per Sanjay Arora, A.M. This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Directed Against The Order By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Bathinda (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) Dated 08.01.2014, Dismissing The Assessee’S Appeal Contesting His Assessment U/S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 ('The Act' Hereinafter) For Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2008-09 Vide Order Dated 20.12.2010. 2. The Appeal Is Delayed By A Period Of 21 Days. The Reason Stated In The Condonation Petition Dated 06/8/2016 By The Assessee Is The Non-Communication Of The Impugned Order, Served On His Counsel, Sh.Pankaj Arora, On 17/2/2014, In Time. The Explanation Appears Bona Fide & The Delay Cannot Be Said To Be Substantial. The Delay Was Accordingly Condoned & The Hearing In The Matter Proceeded With.

delay was accordingly condoned and the hearing in the matter proceeded with. 2 Inderjeet Singh Arora v. ITO 3. The appeal raises two inter-related issues. The facts of the case, which are simple and undisputed, are that the assessee, a sweet meat manufacturer (halwai), filed his return of income for the relevant year at Rs.1,09,950/-, including