SH. LALIT DEEWAN,JAMMU vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-2, JAMMU

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

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi. T. A. No. 453/Asr/2017 Assessment Year: 2013-14

property, it would stand to be valued as an open piece of land for the preceding years as well; the only adjustment (in that case) to the said value being the reduction therefrom of the estimated expenditure on the demolition 6 Lalit Dewan v. Dy. CIT of the said uninhabitable structure, which expenditure has not been shown. In fact

INDIAN TOOLS TECHNOLOGY CENTRE ,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFICER WARD II(1), JALANDHAR

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

House property. Likewise, a company may have income from other sources. It may buy shares and get dividends. Such dividends will be taxable under Section 56 of the Act. The Company may also, as in the present case, keep the surplus fund in short-term FDRs in order to earn interest. Such interests will be chargeable under Section

M/S SHANKAR RICE & GENERAL MILLS ,MOGA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE, MOGA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

house property, profits and gains of business or profession, or capital gains, nor is it income from "other sources" because the provisions of sections 69.69A, 69B and 69C meat unexplained investment, unexplained money, bullion, etc., and unexplained expenditure as deemed income where the nature and source of investment, acquisition or expenditure, as the case may be, have not been

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 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

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

M/S. JAMMU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,,JAMMU ( J&K) vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMMU

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

Bench: Sh. N. S. Saini & Sh. N. K. Choudhryita No. 498/Asr./2013 : Asstt. Year : 2005-06 Jammu Development Authority, Vs Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vikas Bhawan, Rail Head Tax, Circle-I, Complex, Jammu, J & K Jammu (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadfj7335A Ita No. 494/Asr./2013 : Asstt. Year : 2005-06 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vs Jammu Development Authority, Tax, Circle-I, Vikas Bhawan, Rail Head Jammu Complex, Jammu, J & K (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcp1720E Assessee By : Shri. R. K. Gupta, Ca & Shri. Vasu Gupta, Ca Revenue By : Shri. M. P. Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing :21.02.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.03.2019 Order Per N. S. Saini: These Are The Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee & Revenue Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Dated 06.05.2013, Jammu.

house property and deduction @ 30% of the gross amount is allowable under section 24 of the Income Tax Act, which is prayed to be allowed.” 43. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has observed as under: “4.9 Ground of Appeal No. 2.31 relates to treatment of rental income u/s 24 of the Act and allowance of 30% deduction. There

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMMU vs. M/S. JAMMU DEVELPMENT AUTHORITY,, JAMMU

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

Bench: Sh. N. S. Saini & Sh. N. K. Choudhryita No. 498/Asr./2013 : Asstt. Year : 2005-06 Jammu Development Authority, Vs Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vikas Bhawan, Rail Head Tax, Circle-I, Complex, Jammu, J & K Jammu (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadfj7335A Ita No. 494/Asr./2013 : Asstt. Year : 2005-06 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vs Jammu Development Authority, Tax, Circle-I, Vikas Bhawan, Rail Head Jammu Complex, Jammu, J & K (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcp1720E Assessee By : Shri. R. K. Gupta, Ca & Shri. Vasu Gupta, Ca Revenue By : Shri. M. P. Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing :21.02.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.03.2019 Order Per N. S. Saini: These Are The Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee & Revenue Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Dated 06.05.2013, Jammu.

house property and deduction @ 30% of the gross amount is allowable under section 24 of the Income Tax Act, which is prayed to be allowed.” 43. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has observed as under: “4.9 Ground of Appeal No. 2.31 relates to treatment of rental income u/s 24 of the Act and allowance of 30% deduction. There

SH. RAGHUNATH SAHAI PURI(DECD),PATHANKOT vs. THE DEPTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PATHANKOT

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

Bench: Sh. N. K. Choudhry & Sh. O. P. Meenai.T.A. No. 633/Asr/2014 Assessment Year: 2007-08

property of M/s. Defence Services Co-op. House Building Society Ltd., Mohali to M/s. Hash Builders Pvt. Ltd., Chandigarh and M/s. Tata Housing Development Company Ltd., Mumbai on 27.04.2007 for a total consideration of Rs.1,81,25,000/- including the value of flat, be not charged to tax u/s 45 read with section 48 of the Act. 5. The assessee

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

SMT. KAMAL GANDHI,NAWANSHEHAR vs. A.C.I.T, CENTRAL CIRCLE- II, JALANDHAR

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi. T. A. No. 458/(Asr)/2017 Assessment Year: 2010-11

house, stated to be the assessee’s mother-in-law and daughter-in-law. ‘Streedhan’ is the property acquired by a married lady out of the savings effected from the money she gets from her spouse (or any other male member, as 3 Kamal Gandhi v. Asst. CIT Karta of the HUF) for running the household or for her personal

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, TARN TARAN vs. ESTATE OF LATE SH. JAGIR SINGH BHULLAR, TARN TARAN

In the result, the appeals of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Choudhry, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.306/Asr/2014 & 591/Asr/2015 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Estate Of Sh. Jagir Singh Bhullar Vs. Income Tax Officer, Through S. Jasbir—Singh Ward-1(3), Bhullar, Tarn Taran, E-250 Ranjit Avenue, Amritsar, Punjab. Punjab.

Penalty order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3)/147 and under section 271(1) (c ),respectively, of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the ‘Act’). 2. Since these two appeals relate to the same assessee and same assessment year, therefore these have been clubbed and heard together and a consolidated order is being passed

ESTATE OF SH. JAGIR SINGH BHULLAR,AMRITSAR. vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, TARN TARAN

In the result, the appeals of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Choudhry, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.306/Asr/2014 & 591/Asr/2015 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Estate Of Sh. Jagir Singh Bhullar Vs. Income Tax Officer, Through S. Jasbir—Singh Ward-1(3), Bhullar, Tarn Taran, E-250 Ranjit Avenue, Amritsar, Punjab. Punjab.

Penalty order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3)/147 and under section 271(1) (c ),respectively, of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the ‘Act’). 2. Since these two appeals relate to the same assessee and same assessment year, therefore these have been clubbed and heard together and a consolidated order is being passed

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