SHRIMATI RAVINDER BAWA,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(3), JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Laliet Kumar & Dr. M. L. Meena

properties Private Ltd. Vs. CIT 109 ITR 229 are also relevant. “Where assessment order is in accordance with law, it cannot be termed to be erroneous, C.I.T Vs. Ashoka Traders SLP Civil no. 2374-2375 of 1995 dismissed by the Supreme Court 212 ITR (ST) 369.” 23. It was submitted that the observations of Principal Commissioner of Income

SHRI ADARSH KUMAR NAGPAL,ABOHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2 (3), ABOHAR

The appeal of the assessee is disposed of in the terms indicated as above

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

house Property (Rs.1,38,375+3,75,194) and income from other sources (Rs.3,80,981) which is evident from the computation of income forming part of paper book –II at Pg. 296-298. Addition 34,85,100 Rs. Rs.5,18,150 29,66,950/ 5,18,150/- The said cash deposit

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

house with his wife till her death— ITO questioning its source after the same had subsequently been deposited with a bank in the names of assessee's then major daughters—In the absence of any evidence to the effect that the said sum was utilized by the assessee in any other manner, the Department was not justified in unreasonably rejecting

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

property with the family members. The assessee received the amount through bank draft and through cash. Both the amount was deposited in bank account. The assessee relied on the copy of the agreement. But the purchaser denied the said agreement as it is I.T.A. No.129/Asr/2022 4 Assessment Year: 2010-11 own document of assessee. So, the ld. AO has treated

SHRI SUKHJIT SINGH,HOSHIARPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, JALANDHAR

In the result, appeal of the assessees in ITA Nos

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

house property. (v) The assessee deposited cash of Rs 20,00,000/- during demonetization period and was thus obliged to explain

SMT HARNEET KAUR JUNEJA,JALANDHAR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1, JALANDHAR

In the result, appeal of the assessees in ITA Nos

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

house property. (v) The assessee deposited cash of Rs 20,00,000/- during demonetization period and was thus obliged to explain

SHRI MANMOHAN SINGH KAPUR,HOSHIARPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, JALANDHAR

In the result, appeal of the assessees in ITA Nos

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

house property. (v) The assessee deposited cash of Rs 20,00,000/- during demonetization period and was thus obliged to explain

SMT. GAURI CHHABRA W/O SH, ASHOK KUMAR,MUKTSAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD - (5), MUKTSAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

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

property, marriage of any member of family etc. The copy of the undertaking is placed in the APB at page no.24. 3.1. The AR further argued that the ld. AO issued another questionnaire wherein, the ld. AO inquired about the previous cash withdrawals

SH. KIRPAL SINGH,KAPURTHALA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, KAPURTHALA

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

Bench: Shri L.P. Sahu, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.167/Asr/2017 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2010-2011) Sh. Kirpal Singh, Vs. Ito, Kapurthala-1, S/O Ravel Singh, Kapurthala H.No.644, Guru Nanak Nagar, Kapurthala स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Panno. : Bsyps 8252 D (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Sandeep Vijh, Ca राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Charan Dass, Dr

house. Withdrawals made by the 4 assessee through ATM card cannot also be viewed against the assessee. A person may have cash available at home but if he needs money while he is out of home, he can withdraw through ATM also. The assessing officer was also wrong in stating that no cash was available on the date of deposit

INCOME TAX OFFICER, FEROZEPUR vs. MS.JATIN AGRO, FORT ROAD

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Physical Hearing) I.T.A. No. 103 & 104/Asr/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2017-18 Ito, Ward-3(1), Vs. M/S Jatin Agro Fort Road, Ferozepur. 152-P, Ferozepur. [Pan:-Aarpm5393F] (Appellant) (Respondent) Sh. Ashray Sarna, Ca Appellant By Respondent By Sh. Sunil Gautam, Cit. Dr

deposits as business income.” 6. Now, the revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal on the grounds contained in the memorandum of appeal and all the three grounds relates one single issue as to whether the income of the assessee is to be assessed under the head “business” or “other source”. 7. In course of hearing, the ld. DR relied

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1),FEROZEPUR, FEROZEPUR vs. MS.JATIN AGRO, FORT ROAD

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Physical Hearing) I.T.A. No. 103 & 104/Asr/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2017-18 Ito, Ward-3(1), Vs. M/S Jatin Agro Fort Road, Ferozepur. 152-P, Ferozepur. [Pan:-Aarpm5393F] (Appellant) (Respondent) Sh. Ashray Sarna, Ca Appellant By Respondent By Sh. Sunil Gautam, Cit. Dr

deposits as business income.” 6. Now, the revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal on the grounds contained in the memorandum of appeal and all the three grounds relates one single issue as to whether the income of the assessee is to be assessed under the head “business” or “other source”. 7. In course of hearing, the ld. DR relied

LATE SHRI PARVEEN KOCHHAR LEAGAL HEIR KAMINI CHOUDHARY ,AMRITSAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -5 (4), AMRITSAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee bearing ITA 187/Asr/2021 is allowed

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

deposited cash during demonetization period from the withdrawal made by her form HDFC saving account from Chheharta branch as detailed below: Sr. Date of withdrawal Amount of No. withdrawal 1. 30.08.2016 Cheque No.6 Rs.15,00,000/- 2. 30.08.2016 Cheque No.7 Rs.15,00,000/- Total Rs.30,00,000/- 5.2 Mr. Kapoorargued that the assessee had the income from house property

HARISH SHOOR,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(4), JALANDHAR

Bench: Shri L. P. Sahu & Shri Ravish Sood

cash P a g e | 3 ITA No. 247/Asr./2017 A.Y. 2008-09 Shri Harish Shoor Vs. ITO deposits of Rs. 18,00,000/- made by the assessee in his bank account with Standard Chartered Bank, Jalandhar, it was submitted by the assessee that the same was out of the refund of the earnest money of Rs. 25 lacs that

BALBIR SINGH GORAYA,BATALA vs. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, AMRITSAR.

Bench: Sh. Ravish Sood & Dr. M. L. Meena

House No. 1043, Range-II VillageChah Bohrawalla Amritsar Batala [PAN: AMUPG1406C] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sh. Tarun Bansal, Advocate Respondent by: S/sh. Rahul Dhawan, CIT-DR & Rohit Mehra, D.R Date of Hearing: 21.12.2021 Date of Pronouncement: 21.02.2022 ORDER PER RAVISH SOOD, JM : The present appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the respective orders passed by the Commissioner

SH. BARAT PAL SOOD,,PHAGWARA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,, PHAGWARA

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

cash deposits in the saving bank account. In response thereto, the assessee filed affidavits of Shri Baljit Singh S/o Shri Gurmail Singh, Shri Narinder Singh S/o Shri Tara Singh and Shri Mohinder Singh S/o Shri Chain Singh, all residents of village Hardaspur, wherein they have stated that they had advanced amounts of Rs.5,64,000/-, Rs.5,10,000/- and Rs.7

LEELA GUPTA ,JALANDHAR vs. PRINCIPAL COMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing I

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

cash deposits during demonetization period as compared to returned income''. Accordingly, statuary notices u/s 143(2)/142(1) were issued, served and complied with, electronically on the ITBA portal. During the year, the main source of income of assessee is income from house property

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

House Jalandhar Cantt Road, Jalandhar PAN: AIKPK 9383L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sh. Surinder Mahajan, CA Respondent by: Sh. Sunil Gautam, CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 22.12.2021 Date of Pronouncement: 21.02.2022 ORDER PER BENCH : The present appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the respective orders passed by the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-2, Jalandhar, dated 19.07.2017, which

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

House Jalandhar Cantt Road, Jalandhar PAN: AIKPK 9383L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sh. Surinder Mahajan, CA Respondent by: Sh. Sunil Gautam, CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 22.12.2021 Date of Pronouncement: 21.02.2022 ORDER PER BENCH : The present appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the respective orders passed by the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-2, Jalandhar, dated 19.07.2017, which