SMT. PRITPAL KAUR,LUDHIANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 4(3), JALANDHAR

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

penalty proceedings but not mentioned about the sale of property at which the appellant residing earlier because AR has never been appeared before A.O. as original assessment was made ex-parte u/s 144 of the Income Tax Act and that ld. CIT(A) has wrongly held that efforts were made by A.O. to serve notices on alternative address available

ASHWANI KUMAR,UDHAMPUR vs. ADDL. CIT, RANGE -2, JAMMU (AO), JAMMU

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

penalty proceedings, it was submitted by the assessee that the property sold was a very old and ancestral house in Mohalla

HIMANI GOYAL SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, BATHINDA

The appeal stand allowed

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member), SHRI UDAYAN DAS GUPTA (Judicial Member)

penalty for Rs.11,000/- u/s 271(1)(c). Similar assessments were framed for subsequent years as well wherein the assessee, in reopening returns of income, offered additional income from other sources, withdrew claim of house property

HIMANI GOYAL SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, BATHINDA

The appeal stand allowed

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member), SHRI UDAYAN DAS GUPTA (Judicial Member)

penalty for Rs.11,000/- u/s 271(1)(c). Similar assessments were framed for subsequent years as well wherein the assessee, in reopening returns of income, offered additional income from other sources, withdrew claim of house property

HIMANI GOYA SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, BATHINDA

The appeal stand allowed

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member), SHRI UDAYAN DAS GUPTA (Judicial Member)

penalty for Rs.11,000/- u/s 271(1)(c). Similar assessments were framed for subsequent years as well wherein the assessee, in reopening returns of income, offered additional income from other sources, withdrew claim of house property

HIMANI GOYAL SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, BATHINDA

The appeal stand allowed

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member), SHRI UDAYAN DAS GUPTA (Judicial Member)

penalty for Rs.11,000/- u/s 271(1)(c). Similar assessments were framed for subsequent years as well wherein the assessee, in reopening returns of income, offered additional income from other sources, withdrew claim of house property

HIMANI GOYAL SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, BATHINDA

The appeal stand allowed

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member), SHRI UDAYAN DAS GUPTA (Judicial Member)

penalty for Rs.11,000/- u/s 271(1)(c). Similar assessments were framed for subsequent years as well wherein the assessee, in reopening returns of income, offered additional income from other sources, withdrew claim of house property

M/S RAJINDER KOUL HUF,SRINAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3 (2), SRINAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing I

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

house property" and accordingly charged to income-tax as the income of that previous year in which such rent is received, whether the assessee is the owner of that property in that year or not.]” 5.1 But the assessee had taken yearwiserent in each & every year in the return of income.The list with copy of ITRs from assessment years

SHRI RAHUL BHAT,JAMMU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1 (2), JAMMU

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

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

Housing Jammu. Society Ltc. Sector 1, Trikuta Nagar, Jammu, [PAN: AFZPB1564Q] (Respondent) (Appellant) Appellant by None. Respondent by Sh. S.M. Surendra Nath, Sr.DR Date of Hearing 13.10.2022 Date of Pronouncement 19.10.2022 ORDER Per:Anikesh Banerjee, JM: The instant appeal of the assessee is directed against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal), Jammu, [in brevity

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

SUMAN CHHABRA,JAMMU AND KASHMIR vs. WARD 1(1), JAMMU, JAMMU AND KASHMIR

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

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Hybrid Hearing) I.T.A. No. 191/Asr/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18

House No. 38, R.S. Pura, Jammu Jammu. and Kashmir. [PAN:-ALDPC6995Q] (Respondent) (Appellant) Sh. Rohit Kapoor, CA. & Sh. V. S. Appellant by Aggarwal, ITP Respondent by Sh. Charan Dass, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 08.09.025 Date of Pronouncement 26.09.2025 ORDER Per: Udayan Dasgupta, J.M.: This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of ld. CIT (A), passed

SHRI BARJINDERPAL SINGH BHULLAR,MOHALI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- 1 (3), BATHINDA

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

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

property in question. Backed by his aforesaid observations, the A.O was of the view that as the total consideration of Rs. 1,81,25,000/- (supra) had accrued to the assessee during the year under consideration, therefore, the LTCG therein arising to him, i.e, as provided in Sec. 45 r.w Sec. 48 of the Act was liable to be brought

SHRI BRIJINDERPAL SINGH BHULLAR,MOHALI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- 1 (3), BATHINDA

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

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

property in question. Backed by his aforesaid observations, the A.O was of the view that as the total consideration of Rs. 1,81,25,000/- (supra) had accrued to the assessee during the year under consideration, therefore, the LTCG therein arising to him, i.e, as provided in Sec. 45 r.w Sec. 48 of the Act was liable to be brought

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

penalty proceedings u/s 270A(2)(b) for under-reporting of income are being initiated separately. 7.8Thatthe Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the AO has made addition to the tune of Rs. 1124000/- u/s 69A and has relied upon the judgement of Supreme Court in the case of Chuharmal Vs CIT reported

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