SH. ANISH BHAN,JAMMU vs. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, JAMMU

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee bearing ITA No

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No.28/Asr/2023 Assessment Year: 2001-02

house property. But the ld. AO during assessment made addition and completed the assessment on substantive basis in the hands of father- in-law. On the other hand, the protective assessment was completed in the hands of son in law. Later, the son in law retracted from his statement and submitted that Rs.26,40,100/- on account as cash seized

SHRI HIRA LAL KADLABJU,GHAZIABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -1, JAMMU

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee bearing ITA No

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No.28/Asr/2023 Assessment Year: 2001-02

house property. But the ld. AO during assessment made addition and completed the assessment on substantive basis in the hands of father- in-law. On the other hand, the protective assessment was completed in the hands of son in law. Later, the son in law retracted from his statement and submitted that Rs.26,40,100/- on account as cash seized

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

section 69 of the Act against the payment of Motor Vehicle Tax on behalf of the business concern. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in making the addition relating to the rent received in cash. 4. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in making addition of Rs. 2,00,000/- on account of personal savings. 5. That

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

100% of tax sought to be evaded amount of Rs.4,06,623/-. The assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) upheld the order of the ld. AO. 4. Being aggrieved, assessee filed an appeal before us by challenging the penalty amount of Rs.4

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

100 Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Cash credit taxmann.com (Agricultural income) - Assessment year 2011-12 - 325 Certain credit entries were reflecting cash deposit in (Ahmedabad - bank account of assessee - Assessee submitted that Trib.) said sum was loan taken from some parties - Said parties claimed to have generated agricultural income, but such agricultural income was not declared

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX , CIRCLE -1,, JAMMU vs. THE JAMMU & KASHMIR BANK LTD.,, SRINAGAR

In the result, the ground No

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

section 40(a)(ia) are not attracted. Similar type of disallowance has already been deleted by me in the assessment years 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009- 10. Thus, this ground of appeal of the appellant is allowed." I.T.A. No. 790/Asr/2017 12 & Others appeals The Hon'ble ITAT, Amritsar vide its order No.ITA No. 294 (Asr.)/2013

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, JAMMU, SRINAGAR vs. MESERS JAMMU & KASHMIR BANK LIMITED , SRINAGAR

In the result, the ground No

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

section 40(a)(ia) are not attracted. Similar type of disallowance has already been deleted by me in the assessment years 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009- 10. Thus, this ground of appeal of the appellant is allowed." I.T.A. No. 790/Asr/2017 12 & Others appeals The Hon'ble ITAT, Amritsar vide its order No.ITA No. 294 (Asr.)/2013

ASSISTANT COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-1, JAMMU vs. MESERS JAMMU & KASHMIR BANK LIMITED , SRINAGAR

In the result, the ground No

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

section 40(a)(ia) are not attracted. Similar type of disallowance has already been deleted by me in the assessment years 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009- 10. Thus, this ground of appeal of the appellant is allowed." I.T.A. No. 790/Asr/2017 12 & Others appeals The Hon'ble ITAT, Amritsar vide its order No.ITA No. 294 (Asr.)/2013

THE JAMMU AND KASHMIR BANK LIMITED,SRINAGAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, JAMMU

In the result, the ground No

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

section 40(a)(ia) are not attracted. Similar type of disallowance has already been deleted by me in the assessment years 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009- 10. Thus, this ground of appeal of the appellant is allowed." I.T.A. No. 790/Asr/2017 12 & Others appeals The Hon'ble ITAT, Amritsar vide its order No.ITA No. 294 (Asr.)/2013

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, JAMMU vs. MESERS JAMMU & KASHMIR BANK LIMITED , SRINAGAR

In the result, the ground No

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

section 40(a)(ia) are not attracted. Similar type of disallowance has already been deleted by me in the assessment years 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009- 10. Thus, this ground of appeal of the appellant is allowed." I.T.A. No. 790/Asr/2017 12 & Others appeals The Hon'ble ITAT, Amritsar vide its order No.ITA No. 294 (Asr.)/2013

THE DY. COMMISSIONER INCOME-TAX, JAMMU vs. M/S. THE JAMMU & KASHMIR BANK LTD,, SRINAGAR

In the result, the ground No

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

section 40(a)(ia) are not attracted. Similar type of disallowance has already been deleted by me in the assessment years 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009- 10. Thus, this ground of appeal of the appellant is allowed." I.T.A. No. 790/Asr/2017 12 & Others appeals The Hon'ble ITAT, Amritsar vide its order No.ITA No. 294 (Asr.)/2013

THE DY. COMMISSIONER INCOME-TAX, JAMMU vs. M/S. THE JAMMU & KASHMIR BANK LTD,, SRINAGAR

In the result, the ground No

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

section 40(a)(ia) are not attracted. Similar type of disallowance has already been deleted by me in the assessment years 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009- 10. Thus, this ground of appeal of the appellant is allowed." I.T.A. No. 790/Asr/2017 12 & Others appeals The Hon'ble ITAT, Amritsar vide its order No.ITA No. 294 (Asr.)/2013

SHRI DAWARKA DASS,JALALABAD ( W) vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2 (4), ABOHAR

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

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

House of Ashok Kumar Ward -2 (4), Abohar M.C. Dashmesh Nagri Jalalabad (W), 152 024 Punjab [PAN: ASCPD4496K] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sh. Ashwani Kalia, CA Respondent by : Sh. Rajiv Wadhera, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 04.10.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 30.10.2023 ORDER Per Dr. M. L. Meena, AM: This captioned appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order

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

SMT. INDERMEET BAINS W/O SH. D.S. BAINS,BATHINDA vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , BATHINDA

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

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

100 of the ‘judgment set’ and at page no. 99 of Paper Book, wherein it has been held that, it is the discretion of the AO, how to pass an 18 Indermeet Bains v. Pr. CIT assessment order and if, not much have been discussed in the order of the Assessing Officer, then the same can be verified from

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