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

2 6.2. The AO has rejected the claim of deduction made under section 35AD(8)(C)(ii) of the Act, by stating that the income from warehousing is derived from house property and shifted the claim of the Appellant from business to house property and denied the deduction claim under section 35AD

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

section 2(14). The Village Bakarpur is situated in SAS Nagar (Mohali) district and as per notification of Mohali, the limb has been prescribed as under: Mohali (SAS Nagar) Area falling within 1 Km. on either side of Mohali Kharar Road up to a distance of 6 Km. from Municipal Limit on that road. 18. From the above

SHRI HARSH VARDHAN ,JALANDHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR

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

property to which the aforesaid Notice u/s 148, dated 11.03.2015 was addressed, without putting up any efforts to locate the whereabouts of the assessee, which he could have easily gathered by going no further but referring/consulting the assessment records of the assessee, had however, most arbitrarily by way of an idle formality, or, in fact, an eye wash

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

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 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

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue by observing as under. “2. On perusal of assessment order it is observed that "the Assessing Officer has passed a very cryptic and non-speaking order without application of mind. The AO has failed to make

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

143(3) of the Act, 1961 dated 27.12.2019. 2 I.T.A. No. 287/Asr/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 2. Grounds of appeal taken by the renvenue in Form No. 36 are as follows: “1. Whether on the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the CITIA) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 2,46,99,200/ 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

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

143(2)/142(1) were issued, served and complied with, electronically on the ITBA portal. During the year, the main source of income of assessee is income from 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

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

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

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

143(3) , without any variation of the quantum surrendered , except for the fact that the AO has applied the tax rates u/s 115BBE of the Act 61 , treating the said offer as income under the deeming provisions of 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

M/S. PINKU BATRA ,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, JALANDHAR

In the result, the particular issue u/s 153C of the Act related in ITA

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

property without giving proper opportunity of being heard to assessee. 3. That assessee request to add or amend any ground of appeal before the appeal is finally heard and disposed off”. 4.3. The ld. CIT(A) adjudicated the issue in favour of the revenue after calling remand report from the AO under Rule 46A of the IT Rule

M/S. PINKU BATRA ,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, JALANDHAR

In the result, the particular issue u/s 153C of the Act related in ITA

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

property without giving proper opportunity of being heard to assessee. 3. That assessee request to add or amend any ground of appeal before the appeal is finally heard and disposed off”. 4.3. The ld. CIT(A) adjudicated the issue in favour of the revenue after calling remand report from the AO under Rule 46A of the IT Rule

M/S. PINKU BATRA ,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, JALANDHAR

In the result, the particular issue u/s 153C of the Act related in ITA

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

property without giving proper opportunity of being heard to assessee. 3. That assessee request to add or amend any ground of appeal before the appeal is finally heard and disposed off”. 4.3. The ld. CIT(A) adjudicated the issue in favour of the revenue after calling remand report from the AO under Rule 46A of the IT Rule

M/S. PINKU BATRA ,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, JALANDHAR

In the result, the particular issue u/s 153C of the Act related in ITA

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

property without giving proper opportunity of being heard to assessee. 3. That assessee request to add or amend any ground of appeal before the appeal is finally heard and disposed off”. 4.3. The ld. CIT(A) adjudicated the issue in favour of the revenue after calling remand report from the AO under Rule 46A of the IT Rule