TRANSWORLD MUSLIM UNIVERSITY DIAGNOSTIC CENTRE,BARBAR SHAH SRINAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-( EXEMPTIONS), JAMMU

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

section 249(3) of the Act 61. 3.1 Considering the application for condonation of delay, we find that the assessee is indeed a habitual defaulter because the appeal before the ld. first appellate authority for both the years , has been filed belatedly by 91

TRANSWORLD MUSLIM UNIVERSITY DIAGNOSTIC CENTRE,BARBAR SHAH SRINAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-( EXEMPTIONS), JAMMU

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

section 249(3) of the Act 61. 3.1 Considering the application for condonation of delay, we find that the assessee is indeed a habitual defaulter because the appeal before the ld. first appellate authority for both the years , has been filed belatedly by 91

MOHMMAD. MUZAFFAR. BEIGH,,SRINAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(5), SRINAGAR

In the result, the grounds No

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

delay of 101 days is condoned. 3. Brief fact of the case is that the assessee’s case was reopened u/s 148 on basis of the information from Annual Information Report/Central Information Branch for investment in purchase of share/mutual funds/RBI Bonds aggregating to amount of Rs.1,79,91,721/-. The investment was made in previous years. The ld. AO during

SHRI GULZAR AHMAD DAR ,ANANTNAG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, SRINAGAR

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

Bench: Shri Udayan Das Gupta & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2016-17]

condone the delay and admit this appeal for hearing. 4. Brief facts of the case: The assessee is an individual, engaged in the business of trading of construction material (iron, cement & other related items) as wholesaler & retailer during the financial year 2015-16. In this case, the AO had information that the assessee had deposited cash of Rs. 91

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 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