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

capital gain without considering the fact that assessee was a regular investor and has not invested in only one share. 5. 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.15

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

capital gain, if any was assessable in AY 2006-07, which claim had been accepted by his predecessor to delete the addition made in AY 2005-06, now the contentions raised by assessee were totally misleading and contrary to facts. 4. The assessee had relied upon a plethora of under noted cases, wherein the findings/directions were elaborately explained

M/S SHANKAR RICE & GENERAL MILLS ,MOGA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE, MOGA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

capital gains, nor is it income from ’other sources' because the provisions of sections 69, 69A, 69B and 69C treat unexplained investments

M/S BLUE CITY TOWNSHIP & COLONIZERS,AMRITSAR. vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,, AMRITSAR.

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

unexplained investment as per the provisions of section 69 of the I. T. Act. 6. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, no addition for undisclosed investment can be made merely relying on the third party statement and evidence which has been retracted. 7. That the evidences relied upon by the AO for framing assessment were never confronted

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

capital gains I.T.A. No. 197/Asr/2023 5 Assessment Year: 2018-19 u/s 45 of the Act for the above said assessment year. Further the assessee has under reported its income in consequence to misreporting thereof, therefore, necessary penalty proceedings u/s 270A/274 are initiated separately in this case for the assessment year under reference.” 5.1 In the appeal order page

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

Unexplained investments (Immovable I.T.A. No.258/Asr/2022 17 Assessment Year: 2008-09 COCHIN BENCH property) - Assessment year 2010-11 - Where cashdeposited in bank account of Smt.SuryakalaGopakumar assessee was explained from sale proceeds v. of her husband's property and assessee's husband, a NRI, had declared said sale Income tax Officer, Ward-4, consideration and paid capital gain

SH. GURJINDER SINGH,AMRITSAR vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1, AMRITSAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

unexplained income. 24.10.2016 Letter received from Haldiram Mfg Co Pvt Ltd Gurgaon as per which Nil balance shown in the assesee’s account opening and closing balance 10.11.2016 Counsel appeared. Furnished the written submissions to show cause notice and furnished copy of Cash A/c. Asked to explain the discrepancies with books of accounts. Explanation with narration cash withdrawn not explained

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, AMRITSAR. vs. SHRI BALJINDERR SINGH CHAHAL, AMRITSAR.

In the result, the appeal of revenue ITA No

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No.434/Asr/2016 Assessment Year: 2009-10

unexplained investment by the assessee from his undisclosed sources made in purchase of land from various persons/farmers by holding that “the AO has not brought any evidence on record to show that the appellant had purchased the land from various persons/ farmers on agreements/ikrarnamas or power of attorney in his name and later transferred the same to M/s Horizon Buildcon

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, AMRITSAR. vs. SH. SURJIT SINGH, AMRITSAR.

In the result, the appeal of revenue ITA No

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No.434/Asr/2016 Assessment Year: 2009-10

unexplained investment by the assessee from his undisclosed sources made in purchase of land from various persons/farmers by holding that “the AO has not brought any evidence on record to show that the appellant had purchased the land from various persons/ farmers on agreements/ikrarnamas or power of attorney in his name and later transferred the same to M/s Horizon Buildcon

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

Unexplained investments (Immovable property) - Assessment year 2010-11 - Where cashdeposited in bank account of assessee was explained from sale proceeds of her husband's property and assessee's husband, a NRI, had declared said sale consideration and paid capital gain

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

unexplained income and the same was added to the taxable income of the assessee. When such addition was challenged before CIT(Appeals), it also concurred with the findings of Assessing Officer by holding that the entire evidence was to show that Satakhat or the agreement to sell proved the market rate of the land at Rs.2.80 per bighas, and therefore

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

unexplained income and the same was added to the taxable income of the assessee. When such addition was challenged before CIT(Appeals), it also concurred with the findings of Assessing Officer by holding that the entire evidence was to show that Satakhat or the agreement to sell proved the market rate of the land at Rs.2.80 per bighas, and therefore

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

unexplained income and the same was added to the taxable income of the assessee. When such addition was challenged before CIT(Appeals), it also concurred with the findings of Assessing Officer by holding that the entire evidence was to show that Satakhat or the agreement to sell proved the market rate of the land at Rs.2.80 per bighas, and therefore

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

capital amount of refund due to him or to gain on account of sale of properties, his father Sh. Harjit Singh such other person; (PAN: FPHPS8530E) is ready to pay taxes on the same.’ (b) every person who is deemed to The appellant is not deemed to the assessee on behalf of the father Sh. be an assessee under

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

capital Gains.” 4. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-Jalandhar has grossly erred in law in concluding that Rs. 24604/- being interest income has not been declared in the return. 5. That the Appellant requests for leave to add or amend the grounds of appeal before the appeal is heard

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

capital Gains.” 4. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-Jalandhar has grossly erred in law in concluding that Rs. 24604/- being interest income has not been declared in the return. 5. That the Appellant requests for leave to add or amend the grounds of appeal before the appeal is heard

POONAM MARWAHA,AMRITSAR vs. ACIT DCIT CEN CIR, AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee is allowed

invested in stock\n31\n3.\nThat the Assessing Officer had taken one of the plausible views and where there are two plausible\nviews, no action to exercise powers of revision can arise, nor can revision power be exercised for\ndirecting a fuller enquiry to find out if the view taken is erroneous.\n31\n4.\nThe twin conditions that order passed

LATE. SH. GUMAIL SINGH . S/O. SH. LAL 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

investment in properties from the receipts and payment sides of the dairy. Thus, in our view, the credit entry does not depict any income/receipt and debit entry does not show any light on expenditure/investment, then the only possible method to determine Late Sh. Gurmail Singh v. Dy. CIT & Ors undisclosed income for the above period is adoption of peak credit

LATE. SH. GURMAIL. SINGH S/O. SH. LAL SINGH,SHRI MUKAT SAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF 9INCOME TAX. CIRCLE -II, BATHINDA

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

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

investment in properties from the receipts and payment sides of the dairy. Thus, in our view, the credit entry does not depict any income/receipt and debit entry does not show any light on expenditure/investment, then the only possible method to determine Late Sh. Gurmail Singh v. Dy. CIT & Ors undisclosed income for the above period is adoption of peak credit