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

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

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

6. The Ld. CIT(A) erred on facts & law in confirming the action of the AO in assessing the Long Term Capital gains by invoking the provision of section 45(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 because it is a deeming provision which creates fiction only to fix the year of transfer and consideration on transfer but there

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

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

6. The Ld. CIT(A) erred on facts & law in confirming the action of the AO in assessing the Long Term Capital gains by invoking the provision of section 45(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 because it is a deeming provision which creates fiction only to fix the year of transfer and consideration on transfer but there

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

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

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

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

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

M/S. WORLDWIDE FOURTUNE HOMES ,KATHUA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAMMU

In the result, appeal of the assessee ITA No

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

250(6) of the Income tax Act, 1961 merely on assumptions, without appreciating the factual, legal and statutory position of the Law and facts of the case. 2. (a) That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition by invoking the provisions of section 69A of the Act whereas

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

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

section 250(6) of the Income tax Act, 1961 merely on assumptions, presumptions, surmises and conjectures, without appreciating the factual, legal and statutory position of the Law and facts of the case. Amar Nath Choudhary v. Dy. CIT 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming 10% of the total

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

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

section 250(6) of the Income tax Act, 1961 merely on assumptions, presumptions, surmises and conjectures, without appreciating the factual, legal and statutory position of the Law and facts of the case. Amar Nath Choudhary v. Dy. CIT 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming 10% of the total

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

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

section 250(6) of the Income tax Act, 1961 merely on assumptions, presumptions, surmises and conjectures, without appreciating the factual, legal and statutory position of the Law and facts of the case. Amar Nath Choudhary v. Dy. CIT 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming 10% of the total

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

SMT. DHANWANTI DEVI (DECEASED),JAMMU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMMU

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees bearing ITA Nos

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

250 (6) of the Income Tax Act 1961, [in brevity ‘the Act’] for A.Ys. 1988-89. The impugned orders are emanated from the order of the ld. ACIT, Range-2, Jammu, (in brevity the AO) order passed u/s 144/148 of the Act. 2. On perusal of record we find that all three appeals are duly heard on dated 22/06/2009

SMT. ANURADHA MAHAJAN,,JAMMU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMMU

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees bearing ITA Nos

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

250 (6) of the Income Tax Act 1961, [in brevity ‘the Act’] for A.Ys. 1988-89. The impugned orders are emanated from the order of the ld. ACIT, Range-2, Jammu, (in brevity the AO) order passed u/s 144/148 of the Act. 2. On perusal of record we find that all three appeals are duly heard on dated 22/06/2009

SH. SUNIL GUPTA,JAMMU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMMU

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees bearing ITA Nos

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

250 (6) of the Income Tax Act 1961, [in brevity ‘the Act’] for A.Ys. 1988-89. The impugned orders are emanated from the order of the ld. ACIT, Range-2, Jammu, (in brevity the AO) order passed u/s 144/148 of the Act. 2. On perusal of record we find that all three appeals are duly heard on dated 22/06/2009

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

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which has emanated from the order of the AO, CPC passed u/s 143(1) of the Act, 1961 dated 26.09.2018. 2 I.T.A. No. 236/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 2. There are two grounds of appeal taken by the assessee, both relating to the issue of interest received on enhanced compensation arising on compulsory

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