INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1),FEROZEPUR, FEROZEPUR vs. MS.JATIN AGRO, FORT ROAD

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Physical Hearing) I.T.A. No. 103 & 104/Asr/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2017-18 Ito, Ward-3(1), Vs. M/S Jatin Agro Fort Road, Ferozepur. 152-P, Ferozepur. [Pan:-Aarpm5393F] (Appellant) (Respondent) Sh. Ashray Sarna, Ca Appellant By Respondent By Sh. Sunil Gautam, Cit. Dr

143 (SC) and submitted that the primary object of the assessee while explaining the property is to be seen and if the main intention of the assessee was to let out the property or any portion thereof, then the same has to be considered as income from house property and in the instant case, the intention of the assessee

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

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

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

1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Principal CIT-1, Amritsar has erred in invoking the provisions of section 263 of the Income tax Act, 1961 on issues of minuscule importance and that too based on mere presumptions, conjectures and speculation that the assessment framed is erroneous and thus prejudicial to the interests

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

section 6(1) of the Act, therefore the said credit entries totalling to £ 1371.82 were I.T.A. No. 82/Asr/2016 8 & C.O. 11/Asr/2016 taxable in India in AY 2007-08 under the head “ Income from other sources” as their exact source arc not known. Accordingly, the source of credit of amounts of Rs 16,143,719/- and Rs 429,431.20 received

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

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

1. The addition of Rs, 26,40,100/- made by learned AO in the order of assessment issued under section 143(3) of Income Tax Act, 1961 are without fully looking into the facts and records, without application of mind and without affording opportunity of being heard but in a slip shot manner and thereby denying natural justice

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

1. The addition of Rs, 26,40,100/- made by learned AO in the order of assessment issued under section 143(3) of Income Tax Act, 1961 are without fully looking into the facts and records, without application of mind and without affording opportunity of being heard but in a slip shot manner and thereby denying natural justice

SHRI SUBASH GUPTA,JAMMU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, JAMMU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Act, 1961 dated 24.08.2021. 2 I.T.A. No. 671/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2018-19 2. The grounds of appeal taken by the assessee in form 36 are as follows: “1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld. CIT (A)-NFAC, Delhi has confirmed the addition made

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

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

143(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961 dated 10.08.2021. 2 I.T.A. No.557/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2019-20 2. The grounds of appeal taken by the revenue in form 36 are as follows: “1. Whether upon facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 2,05,44,000/- made

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1 JALANDHAR, JALANDHAR vs. ANKUR MARWAHA, JALANDHAR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

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

house property ”, which proves the fact that ,the said premises are let out/leased out , on rent to the above tenants/ lessees , are already in the knowledge of the department , since inception, and the rental income disclosed in regular returns are duly accepted by the department in normal course. 18. It is also seen that all the above four concerns

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, JALANDHAR, JALANDHAR vs. ANKUR MARWAHA, JALANDHAR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

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

house property ”, which proves the fact that ,the said premises are let out/leased out , on rent to the above tenants/ lessees , are already in the knowledge of the department , since inception, and the rental income disclosed in regular returns are duly accepted by the department in normal course. 18. It is also seen that all the above four concerns

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR vs. ANKUR MARWAHA, JALANDHAR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

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

house property ”, which proves the fact that ,the said premises are let out/leased out , on rent to the above tenants/ lessees , are already in the knowledge of the department , since inception, and the rental income disclosed in regular returns are duly accepted by the department in normal course. 18. It is also seen that all the above four concerns

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR vs. ANKUSH MARWAHA, JALANDHAR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

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

house property ”, which proves the fact that ,the said premises are let out/leased out , on rent to the above tenants/ lessees , are already in the knowledge of the department , since inception, and the rental income disclosed in regular returns are duly accepted by the department in normal course. 18. It is also seen that all the above four concerns

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR vs. RAJNI MARWAHA, JALANDHAR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

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

house property ”, which proves the fact that ,the said premises are let out/leased out , on rent to the above tenants/ lessees , are already in the knowledge of the department , since inception, and the rental income disclosed in regular returns are duly accepted by the department in normal course. 18. It is also seen that all the above four concerns