SH. NIRBHAY TREHAN,JAMMU vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAMMU

In the result, the appeals of the assessee bearing ITA Nos

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

delay of 02 days is condoned. 3. The assessee has taken the following grounds: “1. In the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. AO has erred in opening of the assessment by recording false reasons under section 148

SMT. BANI TREHAN,JAMMU vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAMMU

In the result, the appeals of the assessee bearing ITA Nos

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

delay of 02 days is condoned. 3. The assessee has taken the following grounds: “1. In the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. AO has erred in opening of the assessment by recording false reasons under section 148

SH. NIRBHAY TREHAN,JAMMU vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAMMU

In the result, the appeals of the assessee bearing ITA Nos

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

delay of 02 days is condoned. 3. The assessee has taken the following grounds: “1. In the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. AO has erred in opening of the assessment by recording false reasons under section 148

AMANDIP SIINGH,HOUSE NO. NEAR NEHAR PATTI vs. ITO WARD 1, TARN TARAN, ITO WARD , TARN TARAN SARHALI ROAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Udayan Das Gupta & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2013-14]

condone the delay of 183 days and admit this appeal for hearing. 3. Brief facts of the case:- In this case, on the basis of information from the DIT(I&CI), Chandigarh that the assessee had made cash deposit of Rs.1,35,99,000/- in his bank account with HDFC Bank, Fazilka, the case of the assessee was reopened vide

SMT. RAJINDER KAUR,HOSHIARPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD, DASUYA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

delay in filing appeal is condoned and appeal admitted on merits. 4. The Ld. PCIT observed that the assessment has been finalized by the Assessing Officer, without carrying out the necessary verification regarding source of cash deposited in the Bank account. Accordingly, in view of provisions contained in clause (a) of Explanation 2 below sub section (1) of section

AMARJOT SINGH VILLAGE BABEHALI DISTT GURDASPUR,GURDASPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD GURDASPUR, GURDASPUR

In the result, all the five appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical

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

delay is condoned. 3. Brief facts of this case are that the assessee is engaged in agricultural activity and has filed his regular return declaring an income of Rs. 2.31 lakhs from other source and agricultural income of Rs. 22.70 lakhs, which has been assessed u/s 143(3) of the Act 61. 4. Subsequently, on information from investigation wing

AMARJOT SINGH,VILLAGE BABEHALI DISTT GURDASPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER GURDASPUR, GURDASPUR

In the result, all the five appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical

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

delay is condoned. 3. Brief facts of this case are that the assessee is engaged in agricultural activity and has filed his regular return declaring an income of Rs. 2.31 lakhs from other source and agricultural income of Rs. 22.70 lakhs, which has been assessed u/s 143(3) of the Act 61. 4. Subsequently, on information from investigation wing

AMARJOT SINGH,GURDASPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD GURDASPUR, GURDASPUR

In the result, all the five appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical

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

delay is condoned. 3. Brief facts of this case are that the assessee is engaged in agricultural activity and has filed his regular return declaring an income of Rs. 2.31 lakhs from other source and agricultural income of Rs. 22.70 lakhs, which has been assessed u/s 143(3) of the Act 61. 4. Subsequently, on information from investigation wing

AMARJOT SINGH VILLAGE BABEHALI DISTT GURDASPUR,GURDASPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD GURDASPUR, GURDASPUR

In the result, all the five appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical

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

delay is condoned. 3. Brief facts of this case are that the assessee is engaged in agricultural activity and has filed his regular return declaring an income of Rs. 2.31 lakhs from other source and agricultural income of Rs. 22.70 lakhs, which has been assessed u/s 143(3) of the Act 61. 4. Subsequently, on information from investigation wing

AMARJOT SINGH VILLAGE BABEHALI DISTT GURDASPUR,GURDASPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD GURDASPUR G T ROAD GURDASPUR, GURDASPUR

In the result, all the five appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical

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

delay is condoned. 3. Brief facts of this case are that the assessee is engaged in agricultural activity and has filed his regular return declaring an income of Rs. 2.31 lakhs from other source and agricultural income of Rs. 22.70 lakhs, which has been assessed u/s 143(3) of the Act 61. 4. Subsequently, on information from investigation wing

JASDEV SINGH,BATHINDA vs. ITO, WARD 1(1) , BTD, BATHINDA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Physical Hearing) I.T.A. No. 662/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Jasdev Singh, Vs. Ito, Ward 1(1), Gobindpura, Bathinda. Bathinda. [Pan:-Bzyps0363N] (Appellant) (Respondent) Sh. Rohit Kapoor, Adv & Sh. V.S. Appellant By Aggarwal, Itp Respondent By Sh. Charan Dass, Sr. Dr

condone the delay of I.T.A. No. 662/Asr/2024 3 Assessment Year: 2012-13 386 days, in absence of any communication from the office of the ld. CIT(A) in the e-mail id provided in Form 35. As such, we admit the appeal for hearing on merits. 3. The brief facts emerging from records are that the assessee has made cash

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

In the result, the ground no

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No.129/Asr/2022 Assessment Year: 2010-11

delay of 128 days is condoned. 3. The assessee has taken the following concise grounds: “1. That the Ld. CIT (Appeals), has erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in issuing the notice u/s 148 and with regard to reopening of the case. 2. That there was no reason to believe as per the reasons recorded

SHRI TARA CHAND S/O SHRI GOURI SHANKER ,KATHUA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD, KATHUA

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

Bench: Sh. Udayan Das Gupta & Sh. Brajesh Kumar Singh

delay of 44 days is condoned. The appeal of assessee is taken for hearing. 3. The assessee has taken the following grounds: “1. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts dismissing the appeal, as assessee fail to file reply due to the reasons beyond his control. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred

SHRI SAROOP HARI,HOSHIARPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- 4, HOSHIARPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing no

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

delay for 358 days is condoned. 4. The brief fact of case is that as per the ld. AR the assessee basically a holy and virtuous person, has been surviving on dole received from his admirers during religious discourses beside a meagre income generated from running a small business of general merchandise in his village Nadali. Though not a regular

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

condone the delay and admit the appeal to be heard on merits. 3. The grounds of appeal in Form No. 36 are as under: “(i) On the facts & circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting addition of Rs.3,68,15,000/- made on account of long term capital gain on sale of residential land

M/S JAMMU COOPERATIVE WHOLE SALE LIMITED,JAMMU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2 (1), JAMMU

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No. 150/Asr/2020 Assessment Year: 2005-06 M/S Jammu Cooperative Whole Sale The Ito Limited (Super Bazar) Old Hospital Ward-2(1) Road, City Chowk, Jammu- Jammu 180001(J&K)-180001

Section 152 of the I.T. Act the Ld. A.O erred in not dropping the proceeding started U/s 148. 4. That the Ld. CIT(A) has also erred in law in not accepting that the addition made of Rs. 27500/- U/s 40A(3) is not sustainable in law. I.T.A. No. 150/Asr/2020 Assessment Year: 2005-06 2 5. That

SMT..ANURADHA,PATHANKOT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-6(1), PATHANKOT

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Brajesh Kumar Singh

delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted for hearing on merits. 3. The grounds of appeal taken by the assessee in Form 36 are as follows: “1. That on the facts & in circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT (A) erred in confirming the addition made by Ld. Assessing Officer & dismissing the appeal. 2. That

SHRI KHURSHID AHMED WANI S/O GULAM MOHD WANI,SRINAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2, SRINAGAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical

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

section 147 of the Income tax Act, 1961, vide order dated 04.12.2019 by the Income tax Officer, Ward 3(2), Srinagar. Due to non receipt of notices by the assessee, the Ld. A.O. has made assessment u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act and passed ex-parte order. Thereafter, the appeal was filed before the Ld. CIT(A). Since

SHRI ALLAH RAKHA,JAMMU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, KATHUA

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

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

section 250 of the Income tax Act, 1961 merely on assumptions, presumptions and apprehensions, without appreciating the factual, legal and statutory position of the Law and facts of the case. 2. That the Learned CIT (A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) Delhi has erred both in law as well as on facts by dismissing the appeal of the Appellant unheard