SMT. SATYAWATI MARWAHA THROUGH LEGAL HEIR SH, CHANDER SHEIKHAR MARWAHA,JALANDHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal for Asstt

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

house property at Rs.75,600/-, short term capital loss at (Rs.30,618/-), income from bank interest at Rs.17,667/- and LTCG (long term capital gains) amounting to Rs.2,02, 30,196/- which has been claimed as exempt u/s 10(38) of the Act) . After a search operation u/s 132 of the Act 1961 carried out on 29th

VEENA KHINDRI,SRINAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, SRINAGAR

In the result, Assessee's appeal is allowed

House Property income amounting to Rs.10,92,413/-\n,\nbusiness income amounting to Rs. 1,04,588/-and income from\nother sources amounting to Rs. 68,180/- which is duly disclosed\nin the return of income filed on 11.01.2022. The said return was\nprocessed on 26.05.2022 accepting the returned income filed on\n11.01.2022. That there were difficulties faced

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 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 the nature and source of cash credits of Rs 20,00,000/-. Income of Rs. 17,50,000/- only was declared under the head Misc. income. Rs 2.5 lac is not a standard deduction. As per the above mentioned

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 the nature and source of cash credits of Rs 20,00,000/-. Income of Rs. 17,50,000/- only was declared under the head Misc. income. Rs 2.5 lac is not a standard deduction. As per the above mentioned

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 the nature and source of cash credits of Rs 20,00,000/-. Income of Rs. 17,50,000/- only was declared under the head Misc. income. Rs 2.5 lac is not a standard deduction. As per the above mentioned

DASHMESH TIMBER AND FURNITURE HOUSE,AJNALA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Krinwant Sahay

section 69 of the Act 1961. 11 I.T.A. No. 542/Asr/2024 Dashmesh Timber and Furniture House v. Dy. CIT 12. The AR further relying on the jurisdictional High court judgment in the case of Sudarshan Gupta, (2008) 10 DTR (P&H) 184, submitted that when an offer of surrender is being accepted by the department, the same should be accepted

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL CIRCLE), JAMMU vs. ANITA KAPAHI, JAMMU

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed being devoid of merits

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Krinwant Sahay

Housing Infra Pvt. Ltd.)Referring to the impounded documents, the Ld DR submitted that the same has been found at the premises of the partnership firm M/s Kapahi Construction Company where the husband and both the sons of the assessee are partners, and the 12 I.T.A. No.557/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2019-20 contents of the said impounded documents is so clear

SH. GURJINDER SINGH,AMRITSAR vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1, AMRITSAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

House property, Income from Business/Profession” and ‘Income from other sources”. Though, the nature of activities in both the proprietorship concerns is same i.e. wholesale trading of products of “Haldiram’s” but in M/s Pioneer Sales, the gross profit has been shown @ 3.47% whereas in M/s Apex Marketing it is 4%. The AO has failed to verify the reasons for difference

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AMRITSAR. vs. SH. JAIMAL SINGH, L/H. SH. PREM CHAND,, TARN TARAN

In the result, the appeal bearing ITA No

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

20,57, 170/- received through banking channels, as per information provided by the Bank to the assessing officer out of above addition of Rs. 36,57,710/- I.T.A. No. 82/Asr/2016 4 & C.O. 11/Asr/2016 3. The Learned CIT A has erred in law and facts and circumstances of the case in confirming the addition of Rs. 16,00,000/- on account

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

20 kanal was taken as lease. The ld. counsel fully relied on the order of the ld. CIT(A), page-17 which is extracted as below: “The facts of the case, the basis of addition made by the AO and the arguments of the AR during the course of appellate proceedings have been considered. The AR has argued that while

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

20 kanal was taken as lease. The ld. counsel fully relied on the order of the ld. CIT(A), page-17 which is extracted as below: “The facts of the case, the basis of addition made by the AO and the arguments of the AR during the course of appellate proceedings have been considered. The AR has argued that while

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

20 kanal was taken as lease. The ld. counsel fully relied on the order of the ld. CIT(A), page-17 which is extracted as below: “The facts of the case, the basis of addition made by the AO and the arguments of the AR during the course of appellate proceedings have been considered. The AR has argued that while

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

20 kanal was taken as lease. The ld. counsel fully relied on the order of the ld. CIT(A), page-17 which is extracted as below: “The facts of the case, the basis of addition made by the AO and the arguments of the AR during the course of appellate proceedings have been considered. The AR has argued that while

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

20 kanal was taken as lease. The ld. counsel fully relied on the order of the ld. CIT(A), page-17 which is extracted as below: “The facts of the case, the basis of addition made by the AO and the arguments of the AR during the course of appellate proceedings have been considered. The AR has argued that while

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

20 kanal was taken as lease. The ld. counsel fully relied on the order of the ld. CIT(A), page-17 which is extracted as below: “The facts of the case, the basis of addition made by the AO and the arguments of the AR during the course of appellate proceedings have been considered. The AR has argued that while

GEETA VASHISTHA,TALWANDI BHAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -3 (1), FEROZEPUR

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

Bench: Shri Udayan Das Gupta & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2018-19]

20,00,000/- and the same amount had already been arranged vide Advance (Bayana) of Rs. 5 lacs through State Bank of India vide cheque no.182659 dated 25.09.2017 and by arrangement of Housing Loan of Rs. 15 lacs through Union Bank of India vide Bank Draft no.35287057 dated 12.10.2017. But assessee in her reply dated 16.02.2023 has agreed to have

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, SAMBA vs. SH. ASHOK KUMAR SHARMA, SAMBA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in Ground nos

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No.475/Asr/2016 Assessment Year: 2013-14

property, cannot be satisfactorily explained by the assessee, it is open to the revenue to hold that it is the income of the assessee and no further burden lies on the revenue to show that the income is from any particular source. 5. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) was right in fact in deleting the addition of Rsl6

M/S SADHU SINGH HAMDARD TRUST,JALANDHAR vs. THE ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR

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

20,000/- per month being neither correct on facts nor in law would not hold good. When finding of the Tribunal to the effect that excessive remuneration was paid to these two specified persons, being bad on facts and in law, is set aside and order of C1T(A) is restored, allowing benefit of exemption to the assessee under Section