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

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

56,169/- vide order u/s 143(3)1147 dated 20.12.2017. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred on facts & law in confirming the validity of the proceedings u/s 1471148 because the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax did not record the satisfaction on the reasons recorded by the AO, as prescribed u/s 151, that the case of the assessee

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

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

56,169/- vide order u/s 143(3)1147 dated 20.12.2017. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred on facts & law in confirming the validity of the proceedings u/s 1471148 because the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax did not record the satisfaction on the reasons recorded by the AO, as prescribed u/s 151, that the case of the assessee

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

56(2)(viii) and has judiciously allowed the deduction of a sum equal to fifty percentage of such income , allowable u/s 57(iv) of the Act 61 and the addition was restricted to Rs. 16.44 lakhs. 7. Now, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal with the claim that the interest portion received on compensation is to be treated

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

56(2)(vi) of the Act, however, in the absence of any addition having been made as regards the reason on the basis of which the case of the assessee was reopened, the assessment framed by him u/s 147/143(3), dated 30.03.2016 was liable to be quashed; (ii). that the addition made as regards the alleged on-money

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

56(2)(vi) of the Act, however, in the absence of any addition having been made as regards the reason on the basis of which the case of the assessee was reopened, the assessment framed by him u/s 147/143(3), dated 30.03.2016 was liable to be quashed; (ii). that the addition made as regards the alleged on-money