BHAGAT PARKASH KAMAL SHARMA,JAMMU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -1 (1), JAMMU

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

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

short-term capital gain for sale of land related to 1/3 share of the assessee amount of Rs.21 lacs. Being aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) had rejected the appeal of the assessee without considering the ground, only on point of limitation for delay filing of appeal. Being aggrieved assessee filed

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

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

short delay is condoned and appeals are admitted on merits. 6. There is sole issue challenged by the appellant regarding confirmation of 10 % of the addition made by AO in respect of the sale of Flats and 10 % as against the 20% disallowance by AO in respect of the commercial open space on presumption and assumptions on identical facts

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

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

short delay is condoned and appeals are admitted on merits. 6. There is sole issue challenged by the appellant regarding confirmation of 10 % of the addition made by AO in respect of the sale of Flats and 10 % as against the 20% disallowance by AO in respect of the commercial open space on presumption and assumptions on identical facts

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

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

short delay is condoned and appeals are admitted on merits. 6. There is sole issue challenged by the appellant regarding confirmation of 10 % of the addition made by AO in respect of the sale of Flats and 10 % as against the 20% disallowance by AO in respect of the commercial open space on presumption and assumptions on identical facts

SH. INDERJEET SINGH ARORA,BATHINDA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, BATHINDA

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A No.310/Asr/2014 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Inderjeet Singh Arora, Vs. Ito, Ward-1(1), Standard Sweet Corner, Bathinda. Bibiwala Road, Bathinda. [Pan: Advpa 0985G] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Sh. P.N. Arora (C.A) Respondent By: Sh. Charan Das (D.R) Date Of Hearing : 22.10.2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.12.2018 Order Per Sanjay Arora, A.M. This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Directed Against The Order By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Bathinda (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) Dated 08.01.2014, Dismissing The Assessee’S Appeal Contesting His Assessment U/S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 ('The Act' Hereinafter) For Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2008-09 Vide Order Dated 20.12.2010. 2. The Appeal Is Delayed By A Period Of 21 Days. The Reason Stated In The Condonation Petition Dated 06/8/2016 By The Assessee Is The Non-Communication Of The Impugned Order, Served On His Counsel, Sh.Pankaj Arora, On 17/2/2014, In Time. The Explanation Appears Bona Fide & The Delay Cannot Be Said To Be Substantial. The Delay Was Accordingly Condoned & The Hearing In The Matter Proceeded With.

delay was accordingly condoned and the hearing in the matter proceeded with. 2 Inderjeet Singh Arora v. ITO 3. The appeal raises two inter-related issues. The facts of the case, which are simple and undisputed, are that the assessee, a sweet meat manufacturer (halwai), filed his return of income for the relevant year at Rs.1,09,950/-, including

MEHARJIT SINGH DHILLON,BATHINDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(1), BATHINDA

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

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

short-term capital gains amounting to Rs. 63.32 lacs. 4. The matter carried in appeal before the ld. CIT(A) has been dismissed as non- maintainable u/s 249(2) of the Act, on account of delay in filing the same by 160 days. The ld. AR in course of hearing submitted that the delay has not been condoned

SH. JASPAL SINGH S/O SH. SWARAN SINGH,AMRITSAR. vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,, AMRITSAR.

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A. No. 445/Asr/2016 Assessment Year: 2004-05

short) dated 28.2.2016, dismissing the assessee’s appeal contesting his assessment u/s. 144 r/w s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' hereinafter) vide order dated 21.12.2011 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2004-05. 2. The appeal is delayed by a period of 87 days, having been filed on 29.08.2016 as against the due date