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

144, by the AO central circle – 1, Jalandhar, dated 29/03/2022, where the abovementioned bank account of the assessee held with “ Capital Small Finance Bank” has been examined and some additions has been made on account of unexplained credit entries in such bank , but there is no adverse findings in respect of the investment of Rs. 18 lakhs made

THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, MUKTSAR vs. M/S. MAKKAR COTTON MILLS,, MUKTSAR

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No.504/Asr/2014 Assessment Year: 2006-07

capital gain as per provisions of Section 48 of Income tax Act, 1961 by taking the deemed value of consideration of property, as per registered deeds, as done by the AO in the assessment made in the case of persons/partners who sold the land on behalf of M/s Makkar Cotton Mills, Bariwala. (iii) The appellant craves leave

MR.VISHAL BATRA,`LUDHIANA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

144 after taking into account all the material on record by the AO to the best of his judgment and knowledgewith an addition of Rs. 18,82,729/- on account of disallowance of expenses claimed as cost of improvement and expenditure on transfer relating to Short Term Capital Gain. 5. In appeal, the learned CIT (A) has confirmed the addition

HARBANS SINGH,P.O. KHERA DONA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BSNL EXCHANGE COLONY

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed being devoid of merits

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

144 620 Kapurthala [PAN: GIZPS 7573H] (Respondent) (Appellant) Appellant by : Sh. Rajnish Mohindra, Adv. : Respondent by Sh. Charan Dass, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing : 22.09.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 26.09.2025 ORDER Per Udayan Dasgupta, J.M.: This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. Addl./JCIT(A)-7, Mumbai dated 26.02.2024 passed u/s 250 of the Income

SHRI. NITIN PAL SINGH ,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(3), JALANDHAR

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

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

144 of the Act by invoking provisions of section 145(3) of the Act as against best judgment assessment framed u/s 143(3) ofthe Act without invoking provisions of section 145(3) of the Act. Conclusion drawn by learned CIT(A) that “there is no infirmity in the proceedings adopted by AssessingOfficer and assessment order passed by Assessing Officer

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(5), JALANDHAR vs. SHRI NITIN PAL SINGH , JALANDHAR

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

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

144 of the Act by invoking provisions of section 145(3) of the Act as against best judgment assessment framed u/s 143(3) ofthe Act without invoking provisions of section 145(3) of the Act. Conclusion drawn by learned CIT(A) that “there is no infirmity in the proceedings adopted by AssessingOfficer and assessment order passed by Assessing Officer

SHRI GURBINDER SINGH MAHAL,AMRITSAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-IV ( 2), AMRITSAR

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

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

section 250(4)] through banks instead of disposing off the appeal for non-appearance without adjudicating on merits. 7. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, or alter any of the grounds of appeal.” I.T.A. No.22/Asr/2023 4 Assessment Year: 2014-15 2. The case was called for hearing, first, the ld. DR filed an adjournment petition before the bench

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

section 263 be quashed, annulled and cancelled in the interest of justice, equity and fair-play. GOA:- 14:- Vide ground of appeal No.14, it is humbly prayed that in the event of any adversity arising out of the brief written submission besides judgement set, I.T.A. No. 425/Asr/2019 19 Assessment Year: 2014-15 assessee may kindly be afforded an effective opportunity

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

144 of the Act, with an addition of Rs. 7,37,948/- by taking into consideration peak amount date 24.12.2017 on account of cash deposited in ICICI bank. Aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) uphold the order of assessment. Being dissatisfied the assessee filed an appeal before us. 4. The ld. Counsel

SHRI MOHD MANZOOR,RAJOURI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -2 (3), JAMMU

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

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

capital gain tax, Assessing Officer erred in treating said deposit as unexplained investment of assessee [In favour of assessee] e) 2017] 83 taxmann.com 246 (Mumbai - Trib.) IN THE ITAT MUMBAI BENCH ' J'Jaspal Singh Sehgal v. Income-tax Officer WD 21(2)(1), Mumbai* Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Cash credit (Cash) - Assessment year 2009-10 - Where

GURPREET SINGH PANNU,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JALANDHAR

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

144 r.w.s 147 of the Act without considering the facts that notice u/s 148 and other notices were never received/served on the assessee. 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 dismissing the appeal as not admitted in view of section

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