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

4. (a) 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.2,11,81,016/-, on account of long term capital gain treated as income from undisclosed sources, without considering the facts of the case

SHRIMATI HARMOHINDER KAUR,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, OFFICER CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Sh. N.K.Choudhry & Dr. A.L.Sainiassessment Year: 2009-10

capital gain' taxable in the hands of the assessee at Rs.31,42,225/-. Therefore, under the facts and circumstances of the case, the addition of Rs. 28,50,001/- made by the AO is found sustainable and hence confirmed. Accordingly, these grounds of appeal are dismissed. 3. The assessee being aggrieved preferred the instant appeal. 4. Having heard the parties

SMT. GURJEET KAUR,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- IV (2),, JALANDHAR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our

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

section (4A) of Sec. 132 of the Act. As is discernible from the records, we find that the A.O in his ‘remand report’ that was filed in the course of the proceedings before the CIT(A), had fairly admitted that he had only received a copy of the “agreement to sell”, dated 25.02.2008 from the Dy. DIT (Inv.), Ludhiana

SMT. GURJEET KAUR,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- IV (2),, JALANDHAR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our

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

section (4A) of Sec. 132 of the Act. As is discernible from the records, we find that the A.O in his ‘remand report’ that was filed in the course of the proceedings before the CIT(A), had fairly admitted that he had only received a copy of the “agreement to sell”, dated 25.02.2008 from the Dy. DIT (Inv.), Ludhiana

M/S RAMAN KUMAR AGGARWAL,GURDASPUR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER .OF. INCOME. TAX , AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

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

B) PAYMENT FOR PURCHASE MADE IN CASH: The purchase payments were made in cash and not through the normal banking channel therefore the same were non-verifiable from the authentic supporting details such as bank accounts/documents. On one side, assessee is claiming that money is received through banking channel and so transaction is genuine, but what the assessee

SH.GAURAV AGGARWAL,GURDAS PUR vs. DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

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

B) PAYMENT FOR PURCHASE MADE IN CASH: The purchase payments were made in cash and not through the normal banking channel therefore the same were non-verifiable from the authentic supporting details such as bank accounts/documents. On one side, assessee is claiming that money is received through banking channel and so transaction is genuine, but what the assessee

SH. RAMAN KUMAR AGGARWAL,GURDAS PUR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

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

B) PAYMENT FOR PURCHASE MADE IN CASH: The purchase payments were made in cash and not through the normal banking channel therefore the same were non-verifiable from the authentic supporting details such as bank accounts/documents. On one side, assessee is claiming that money is received through banking channel and so transaction is genuine, but what the assessee

SMT. DEEPTI AGGARWAL,GURDAS PUR vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

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

B) PAYMENT FOR PURCHASE MADE IN CASH: The purchase payments were made in cash and not through the normal banking channel therefore the same were non-verifiable from the authentic supporting details such as bank accounts/documents. On one side, assessee is claiming that money is received through banking channel and so transaction is genuine, but what the assessee

SH. GURBACHAN SINGH BRAR,MOGA vs. ITO, WARD - 1,, MOGA

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

132 of the Income Tax Act was conducted at the premises of M/s Godwin Group of Cases on 09.09.2010. During the course of search, certain documents pertaining to Assesse were found and the said documents were passed on to the Assessing Officer of the Assesse.On the basis of the information and after recording the satisfaction note, the case

SH. SANTOKH SINGH BRAR,MOGA vs. ITO, WARD - 2,, MOGA

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

132 of the Income Tax Act was conducted at the premises of M/s Godwin Group of Cases on 09.09.2010. During the course of search, certain documents pertaining to Assesse were found and the said documents were passed on to the Assessing Officer of the Assesse.On the basis of the information and after recording the satisfaction note, the case

THE DY. COMMISSIONER INCOME-TAX, JAMMU vs. M/S. HORIZON BUILDCON PVT. LTD,, JAMMU

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue in I

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

4. The Appellant craves leave to add or amend the grounds of appeal on or before is heard and disposed off. 5. It is prayed that the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), be set-aside and that of the AO be restored on merits.” 5. The department has raised identical grounds involving common issue except variation

THE DY. COMMISSIONER INCOME-TAX, JAMMU vs. M/S. HORIZON BUILDCON PVT. LTD,, JAMMU

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue in I

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

4. The Appellant craves leave to add or amend the grounds of appeal on or before is heard and disposed off. 5. It is prayed that the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), be set-aside and that of the AO be restored on merits.” 5. The department has raised identical grounds involving common issue except variation

THE DY. COMMISSIONER INCOME-TAX, JAMMU vs. M/S. HORIZON BUILDCON PVT. LTD,, JAMMU

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue in I

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

4. The Appellant craves leave to add or amend the grounds of appeal on or before is heard and disposed off. 5. It is prayed that the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), be set-aside and that of the AO be restored on merits.” 5. The department has raised identical grounds involving common issue except variation