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

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

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

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

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

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

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

house property Income at Rs.1,17,600/- and on account of undeclared bank interest Income at Rs.34,242/-, respectively. Accordingly, the AO 3 completed the assessment u/s.143(3) of the Act dated 23.12.2011 assessing total income at Rs.22,55,590/-. 4. Feeling aggrieved from the assessment order, the assessee appealed before the CIT(A) and the CIT(A) partly allowed

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

demonetization period)- This will result in the assessee’s business income/profit to be recomputed at Rs 752402/- u/s 28 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Since this business income was not offered to tax, no return of income was filed and the business income assessed is greater than the maximum amount not chargeable to tax, penalty proceedings u/s 270A

SHRI BHAVNOOR SINGH BEDI,JALANDHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue, ITA No 90/Asr/2020 is dismissed

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

house for which the surrender has been made and the minor expenses are related to the college. The AO observed that however, it is clearly mentioned in the updated account on page no. 170 that only a sum of Rs. 81,301/- of Bill no. 3 is for residence. Hence the remaining amount of Rs. 38,07,065/- was held

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR vs. SHRI BHAVNOOR SINGH BEDI, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue, ITA No 90/Asr/2020 is dismissed

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

house for which the surrender has been made and the minor expenses are related to the college. The AO observed that however, it is clearly mentioned in the updated account on page no. 170 that only a sum of Rs. 81,301/- of Bill no. 3 is for residence. Hence the remaining amount of Rs. 38,07,065/- was held

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR vs. SHRI BHAVNOOR SINGH BEDI, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue, ITA No 90/Asr/2020 is dismissed

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

house for which the surrender has been made and the minor expenses are related to the college. The AO observed that however, it is clearly mentioned in the updated account on page no. 170 that only a sum of Rs. 81,301/- of Bill no. 3 is for residence. Hence the remaining amount of Rs. 38,07,065/- was held

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR vs. SHRI JATINDER SINGH BEDI , JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue, ITA No 90/Asr/2020 is dismissed

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

house for which the surrender has been made and the minor expenses are related to the college. The AO observed that however, it is clearly mentioned in the updated account on page no. 170 that only a sum of Rs. 81,301/- of Bill no. 3 is for residence. Hence the remaining amount of Rs. 38,07,065/- was held

SHRI BHAVNOOR SINGH BEDI,JALANDHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue, ITA No 90/Asr/2020 is dismissed

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

house for which the surrender has been made and the minor expenses are related to the college. The AO observed that however, it is clearly mentioned in the updated account on page no. 170 that only a sum of Rs. 81,301/- of Bill no. 3 is for residence. Hence the remaining amount of Rs. 38,07,065/- was held

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR vs. SHRI JATINDER SINGH BEDI, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue, ITA No 90/Asr/2020 is dismissed

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

house for which the surrender has been made and the minor expenses are related to the college. The AO observed that however, it is clearly mentioned in the updated account on page no. 170 that only a sum of Rs. 81,301/- of Bill no. 3 is for residence. Hence the remaining amount of Rs. 38,07,065/- was held

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

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