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

MAX FINANCIAL SERVICE LIMITED ,NAWANSHAHR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is therefore partly allowed

143(3) of the Act was erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of revenue. 4. That the assumption of jurisdiction under section 263 is also bad in law since the PCIT has failed to demonstrate as to how any of the conditions prescribed in Explanation 2 to section action 263 of the Act stood satisfied on the facts

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

M/S ACTIVE TOOLS (P). LIMITED,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -II, JALANDHAR

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

house property, profits and gains of business or profession, or capital gains, nor as it income from "other sources" because the provisions of sections 69,69A, 69B and 69 treat unexplained investments, unexplained money, bullion etc. and unexplained expenditure as deemed income where the nature and sources of investment, acquisition or expenditure, as the case may be, have not been

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

LORD MAHAVIRA HOMOEOPHATIC MEDICAL COLLEGE AND HOSPITAL ,LUDHIANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTIONS), JALANDHAR

In the result the 2nd ground raised by the assessee is liable to be allowed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

143(3), the assessee could not trace the necessary certificate of registration u/s 12A, which had been mentioned in para 3 of the order of Assessing Officer and, therefore, the Ld. Assessing Officer has taken the status as “AOP” and without doubting the aims and objects and genuineness of the society, the excess of income over expenditure on the basis

M/S LORD MAHAVIRA HOMEOP[ATHIC MEDICAL COLLEGE & HOSPITAL ,LUDHIANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- ( EXEMPTIONS), JALANDHAR

In the result the 2nd ground raised by the assessee is liable to be allowed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

143(3), the assessee could not trace the necessary certificate of registration u/s 12A, which had been mentioned in para 3 of the order of Assessing Officer and, therefore, the Ld. Assessing Officer has taken the status as “AOP” and without doubting the aims and objects and genuineness of the society, the excess of income over expenditure on the basis

M/S LORD MAHAVIR HOMEOPATHIC MEDICAL COLLAGE & HOSPITAL,LUDHIANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- ( EXEMPTIONS), JALANDHAR

In the result the 2nd ground raised by the assessee is liable to be allowed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

143(3), the assessee could not trace the necessary certificate of registration u/s 12A, which had been mentioned in para 3 of the order of Assessing Officer and, therefore, the Ld. Assessing Officer has taken the status as “AOP” and without doubting the aims and objects and genuineness of the society, the excess of income over expenditure on the basis

SMT. GURJEET KAUR,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- IV (2),, JALANDHAR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our

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

House Jalandhar Cantt Road, Jalandhar PAN: AIKPK 9383L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sh. Surinder Mahajan, CA Respondent by: Sh. Sunil Gautam, CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 22.12.2021 Date of Pronouncement: 21.02.2022 ORDER PER BENCH : The present appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the respective orders passed by the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-2, Jalandhar, dated 19.07.2017, which

SMT. GURJEET KAUR,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- IV (2),, JALANDHAR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our

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

House Jalandhar Cantt Road, Jalandhar PAN: AIKPK 9383L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sh. Surinder Mahajan, CA Respondent by: Sh. Sunil Gautam, CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 22.12.2021 Date of Pronouncement: 21.02.2022 ORDER PER BENCH : The present appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the respective orders passed by the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-2, Jalandhar, dated 19.07.2017, which

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

143(3) of the Act. 2. The revenue has taken the following grounds: 1.a. Whether the Ld. C1T(A) was right in law and fact in allowing deduction u/s 80IB to the assessee when the AO has found various discrepancies in Form 10CXB filed by the assessee and no mention of any manufacturing activity is found in Form

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 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [Corresponding to section 23(3) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922]-Assessment - Additions to income - Assessment year 1944-45-Whether though ITO is not fettered by technical rules of evidence and pleadings and he is entitled to act on material which may not be accepted as evidence on account

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

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

143(3) were not justified. Copy of the order is enclosed at page no. 80 to 82. (g) Principal CIT vs. Saumya Construction - 387 ITR 529 (Gujarat High Court): It was held that if in relation to any assessment year, no incriminating document is found, no addition or disallowance can be made in relation to that assessment year. Copy

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

143(3) were not justified. Copy of the order is enclosed at page no. 80 to 82. (g) Principal CIT vs. Saumya Construction - 387 ITR 529 (Gujarat High Court): It was held that if in relation to any assessment year, no incriminating document is found, no addition or disallowance can be made in relation to that assessment year. Copy

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

143(3) were not justified. Copy of the order is enclosed at page no. 80 to 82. (g) Principal CIT vs. Saumya Construction - 387 ITR 529 (Gujarat High Court): It was held that if in relation to any assessment year, no incriminating document is found, no addition or disallowance can be made in relation to that assessment year. Copy

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

house property by Sh Prem Chand in United Kingdom and his other income earned in the United Kingdom, which were earned in the FY 2006-07 and were taxable in AY 2007-08. Therefore ,the addition on account of credit entries in the said bank accounts of Late Prem Chand in his Standard Chartered Bank of Rs 16,143

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