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

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

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

ISHAR INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELPOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,BATHINDA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, BATHINDA

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

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Hybrid Hearing) I.T.A. No. 686/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2022-23

delay of 93 ( ninety three ) days in filing the appeal is condoned and the appeal is admitted to be heard on merits. 3. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in Form No. 36 are as under: “1. The Addl./JCIT(A) has erred on facts and law in confirming the action of DDIT CPC, Bangalore

MEHARJIT SINGH DHILLON,BATHINDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(1), BATHINDA

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

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

capital gains amounting to Rs. 63.32 lacs. 4. The matter carried in appeal before the ld. CIT(A) has been dismissed as non- maintainable u/s 249(2) of the Act, on account of delay in filing the same by 160 days. The ld. AR in course of hearing submitted that the delay has not been condoned

SMT. PARMINDER KAUR BRAR,KOTKAPURA vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1, AMRITSAR

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

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

delay of 334 days is condoned. 3. The assessee has taken the following grounds: “1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Pr. CIT, Bathinda erred in revising the assessment order Dated 14.12.2018 passed by the AO, Ward 3(3), Faridkot which was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to interest of revenue