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

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 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

142(1) too remained uncomplied with. Observing, that the assessee despite having been afforded sufficient opportunities had failed to comply with the notices that were issued to him, the A.O therein proceeded with the assessment on an ex-parte basis u/s 144 of the Act, i.e, on the basis of the material/information available on record. 3. Observing, that the assessee

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

142(1) too remained uncomplied with. Observing, that the assessee despite having been afforded sufficient opportunities had failed to comply with the notices that were issued to him, the A.O therein proceeded with the assessment on an ex-parte basis u/s 144 of the Act, i.e, on the basis of the material/information available on record. 3. Observing, that the assessee

SHRIMATI RAVINDER BAWA,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(3), JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Laliet Kumar & Dr. M. L. Meena

142 (Bom. Since an enquiry was specifically held with reference to which a disclosure of details was called for by the Assessing Officer and made by the assessee, the observation of the CIT that the Assessing Officer had arrived at his findings without conducting an enquiry was erroneous and therefore the CIT wrongly exercised the powers by recourse to section

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

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

house she resided with her daughter at 618. Phase 2, Urban Estate, Chandigarh Road, Ludhiana. In the meantime the department has issued a notice for verification of mutual fund transaction for an investment of Rs.6,00,000. She could not receive the notice as she has left Jalandhar. The assessing officer has made the best judgment assessment

SHRIMATI JATINDER KAUR ( ALIAS AMRITA),JALANDHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JALANDHAR

In the result all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

house at P.O. Box No. 20458, Manama, Bahrain, a villa at Rifa View, Golf Course Road, Awali, Bahrain. He was also the owner of a villa at Emirates Road, Legend Colony, Dubai, Flat no. 3102, Tower 4, Ajman 1, Dubai and a Flat at Sports City, Emirates Road, Dubai. It is further submitted that he held 20 % of the equity

SHRIMATI JATINDER KAUR(ALIAS AMRITA),JALANDHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JALANDHAR

In the result all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

house at P.O. Box No. 20458, Manama, Bahrain, a villa at Rifa View, Golf Course Road, Awali, Bahrain. He was also the owner of a villa at Emirates Road, Legend Colony, Dubai, Flat no. 3102, Tower 4, Ajman 1, Dubai and a Flat at Sports City, Emirates Road, Dubai. It is further submitted that he held 20 % of the equity

SHRIMATI JATINDER KAUR (ALIAS AMRITA),JALANDHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JALANDHAR

In the result all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

house at P.O. Box No. 20458, Manama, Bahrain, a villa at Rifa View, Golf Course Road, Awali, Bahrain. He was also the owner of a villa at Emirates Road, Legend Colony, Dubai, Flat no. 3102, Tower 4, Ajman 1, Dubai and a Flat at Sports City, Emirates Road, Dubai. It is further submitted that he held 20 % of the equity

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

section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' hereinafter) vide order dated 22.01.2016 for Assessment Year (AY) 2013-14. 2. The facts of the case in-so-far as are relevant are that the assessee sold an immovable property, being a plot of land (at Gattha Sohana, Haryana) during the 2 Lalit Dewan v. Dy. CIT relevant year

MR.VISHAL BATRA,`LUDHIANA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

1. That the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and facts of the Case by sustaining an addition amounting to Rs. 18,82,729/- under the head “Income from Short Term Capital Gains”. 2. That, out of the above amount of Rs. 18,82,729/-, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred

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

section 142(1) no. ITBA/AST/F/142(1)/2019- I.T.A. No. 187/Asr/2021 4 20/1018063076(1) along with annexure dated 18.09.2019 calling for information and documents. In compliance to said notice, the assessee replied through online that she deposited cash during demonetization period from the withdrawal made by her form HDFC saving account from Chheharta branch as detailed below: Sr. Date of withdrawal

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

house property. 2 in response to statutory notices, the assessee furnished the requisite information as called for on ITBA portal, which is placed on record. The information filed, supporting documents produced and submissions made by the assessee have been considered and issues arising from the return of income as compared to reasons for selection under CASS have been examined. Reply

INCOME TAX OFFICER, INCOME TAX OFFICE vs. VIKAS MEHRA, THE MALL

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed being devoid of

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

house) on the death of his father in the year 1991, (through will). One of the properties is situated at Joshi Colony, Amritsar, which was purchased by the father of the assessee on 18.07.1962 for Rs.10,000/-. The second property is situated at Delhi which was also purchased by the father of the assessee on 16.05.1991 for Rs.9 lacs (nine

SHRI RAJAN BATRA ,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, JALANDHAR

In the result, the ITA No

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

house property, without considering the facts of the case and without observing the principles of natural justice. s. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Hon’ble CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld. Assessing Officer in making an addition of Rs. 17,88,806/-, without considering

SHR RAJESH TIWARI,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, JALANDHAR

In the result, the ITA No

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

house property, without considering the facts of the case and without observing the principles of natural justice. s. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Hon’ble CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld. Assessing Officer in making an addition of Rs. 17,88,806/-, without considering

SHRI RAJESH TIWARI,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, JALANDHAR

In the result, the ITA No

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

house property, without considering the facts of the case and without observing the principles of natural justice. s. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Hon’ble CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld. Assessing Officer in making an addition of Rs. 17,88,806/-, without considering

SHRI RAJESH TIWARI,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, JALANDHAR

In the result, the ITA No

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

house property, without considering the facts of the case and without observing the principles of natural justice. s. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Hon’ble CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld. Assessing Officer in making an addition of Rs. 17,88,806/-, without considering