M/S CITI PLAZA,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , WARD 3(1), JALANDHAR

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

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

250 (6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in brevity the Act) for assessment year 2006-07. The impugned order was emanated from the order of the ld. ITO, Ward-III(1), Jalandhar, (in brevity the ld. AO) order passed u/s 147/148 and 150 of the Act. I.T.A. No. 356/Asr/2017 2 Assessment Year: 2006-07 2. The assessee has taken

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

250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which has emanated from the order of the 2 I.T.A. Nos. 346 & 347/Asr/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 DCIT, Central Circle, Jalandhar passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act, 1961 dated 29.03.2022. 2. Grounds of appeal taken by the assessee in ITA No. 346/Asr/2024 for A.Y. 2014-15 in Form

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

250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which has emanated from the order of the 2 I.T.A. Nos. 346 & 347/Asr/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 DCIT, Central Circle, Jalandhar passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act, 1961 dated 29.03.2022. 2. Grounds of appeal taken by the assessee in ITA No. 346/Asr/2024 for A.Y. 2014-15 in Form

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

250 of the act 61, dated 18/12/2023, which has arisen out of the order of the AO Ward-2(5) Muktsar passed u/s 143(3) dated 28.12.2019. Condonation of Delay: 2. It is seen that this appeal has been filed belatedly by 117 days (one hundred seventeen days). An application for condonation of delay has been filed

SHRI OM PARKASH LEGAL HEIAR SMT PUSHPA VERMA,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(3), JALANDHAR

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A. No. 756/Asr/2017 Assessment Year: 2014-15

250 (Del), submit that the fact of the matter is that the ‘fact’ of payment during f.y. 2014-15 was not disclosed by the assessee to the Assessing 4 Om Parkash v. ITO Officer (AO) during the assessment proceedings, which were on both during f.y. 2014-15 as well as part of f.y. 2015-16. In any case, the payment

M/S ACTIVE TOOLS (P). LIMITED,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -II, JALANDHAR

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

capital gains, nor as it income from "other sources" because the provisions of sections 69,69A, 69B and 69 treat unexplained investments, unexplained money, bullion etc. and unexplained expenditure as deemed income where the nature and sources of investment, acquisition or expenditure, as the case may be, have not been explained or satisfactorily explained. Therefore, in these cases, the source

SH. RAGHUNATH SAHAI PURI(DECD),PATHANKOT vs. THE DEPTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PATHANKOT

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

Bench: Sh. N. K. Choudhry & Sh. O. P. Meenai.T.A. No. 633/Asr/2014 Assessment Year: 2007-08

250(6) of the I.T. Act, 1961 dated 26.08.2014 for the Assessment Year 2007-08. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in confirming the levy of penalty of Rs.39.80 lacs on deceased assessee, as imposed

SHRI NAROTAM SINGH,MANSA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -1(4), MANSA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are allowed

250(6) / 143(3) of the IT Act, 1961, Request for Admission of Additional Evidence In this case, the appeal is pending before the Learned Bench and the brief facts of this case are as under:- 1. The assessee contributed ancestral agriculture land along-with his brother as their share in the capital in the books of M/s G.S. Chahal

SHRI TARLOCHAN SINGH,MANSA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(4), MANSA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are allowed

250(6) / 143(3) of the IT Act, 1961, Request for Admission of Additional Evidence In this case, the appeal is pending before the Learned Bench and the brief facts of this case are as under:- 1. The assessee contributed ancestral agriculture land along-with his brother as their share in the capital in the books of M/s G.S. Chahal

SHRI BARJINDERPAL SINGH BHULLAR,MOHALI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- 1 (3), BATHINDA

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

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

250 sq. ft worth Rs. 1,01,25,000/-, therefore, his income of Rs. 1,81,25,000/- on account of Long Term Capital Gain (“LTCG”, for short) had escaped assessment, reopened his case u/s 147 of the Act. Observing, that the Notice u/s 148 of the Act, dated 06.06.2012 could not be served upon the assessee because

SHRI BRIJINDERPAL SINGH BHULLAR,MOHALI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- 1 (3), BATHINDA

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

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

250 sq. ft worth Rs. 1,01,25,000/-, therefore, his income of Rs. 1,81,25,000/- on account of Long Term Capital Gain (“LTCG”, for short) had escaped assessment, reopened his case u/s 147 of the Act. Observing, that the Notice u/s 148 of the Act, dated 06.06.2012 could not be served upon the assessee because

INCOME TAX OFFICER, INCOME TAX OFFICE vs. VIKAS MEHRA, THE MALL

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

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

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which has emanated from the order of the AO, Ward 5(4), Amritsar passed u/s 143(3) of the Act, 1961 dated 27.12.2019. 2 I.T.A. No. 287/Asr/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 2. Grounds of appeal taken by the renvenue in Form No. 36 are as follows: “1. Whether on the facts

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

250(6) of the Income Tax Act 1961, [in brevity ‘the Act’] for A.Y. I.T.A. No.504/Asr/2014 2 Assessment Year: 2006-07 2006-07. The impugned order was emanated from the order of the ld. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Muktsar(in brevity the AO) order passed u/s 144 of the Act. 2. The revenue has taken the following grounds

M/S EMBROCIA FARMS PVT LTD. ,PATHANKOT vs. D.C.I.T, CIRCLE-6,, PATHANKOT

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is (in ITA No

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A. Nos. 561/Asr/2018 & 284/Asr/2017 Assessment Year: 2006-07

capital gain could not be separately computed. Qua the first issue, the ld. CIT(A) held that the issue being now raised was not the subject matter of appeal and, consequently, not adjudicated u/s. 250 in the first instance. As regards the second ground, the same raised a contentious issue, i.e., which was debatable and, thus, outside the purview

MESERS EMBROCIA FARMS PVT LTD,PATHANKOT vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6, PATHANKOT

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is (in ITA No

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A. Nos. 561/Asr/2018 & 284/Asr/2017 Assessment Year: 2006-07

capital gain could not be separately computed. Qua the first issue, the ld. CIT(A) held that the issue being now raised was not the subject matter of appeal and, consequently, not adjudicated u/s. 250 in the first instance. As regards the second ground, the same raised a contentious issue, i.e., which was debatable and, thus, outside the purview

SH. ARSPREET SINGH . S/O. LATE. SH. GURMAIL SINGH ,MUKTSAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE .II, BATHINDA

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

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

250(6) by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Bathinda in Appeal No. 135-IT/17-18 dated 12.11.2018 is contrary to law and facts of the case and that he gravelly erred in upholding the penalty of Rs.54,61,000/- imposed by the ld. Assessing Officer under Late Sh. Gurmail Singh v. Dy. CIT & Ors section 271(1

SH. ARASHPREET SINGH S/O. LATE SH. GURMAIL SINGH,MUKTSAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-II, BATHINDA

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

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

250(6) by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Bathinda in Appeal No. 135-IT/17-18 dated 12.11.2018 is contrary to law and facts of the case and that he gravelly erred in upholding the penalty of Rs.54,61,000/- imposed by the ld. Assessing Officer under Late Sh. Gurmail Singh v. Dy. CIT & Ors section 271(1

SH. ARASHPREET SINGH S/O. LATE SH. GURMAIL SINGH,MUKTSAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CERCLE- II, BATHINDA

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

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

250(6) by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Bathinda in Appeal No. 135-IT/17-18 dated 12.11.2018 is contrary to law and facts of the case and that he gravelly erred in upholding the penalty of Rs.54,61,000/- imposed by the ld. Assessing Officer under Late Sh. Gurmail Singh v. Dy. CIT & Ors section 271(1

LATE. SH. GURMAIL SINGH S/O. SH. LAL SINGH,SRI MUKATSAR vs. DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -II, BATHINDA

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

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

250(6) by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Bathinda in Appeal No. 135-IT/17-18 dated 12.11.2018 is contrary to law and facts of the case and that he gravelly erred in upholding the penalty of Rs.54,61,000/- imposed by the ld. Assessing Officer under Late Sh. Gurmail Singh v. Dy. CIT & Ors section 271(1