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

House Property". 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law as apart from letting out of its godowns, no other services, were extended by the assessee to the lessees. Merely because one of the objectives was to let out the godown would not mean that the assessee

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

SMT. ZEENAB,SRINAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(3),, SRINAGAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue Department stands dismissed, whereas the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes on the aforesaid reasons stated above

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N.K.Choudhry

house property for purpose of residence. The ground of appeal raised by the appellant is, therefore, rejected. Ground of appeal No.6: is general in nature and does not require any adjudication. 3. The Revenue department on aggrieved against the order impugned herein preferred its appeal on the following grounds. "1. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) was right

ITO, WARD- 3(3), SRINAGAR vs. SMT. ZEENAB, BEMINA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue Department stands dismissed, whereas the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes on the aforesaid reasons stated above

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N.K.Choudhry

house property for purpose of residence. The ground of appeal raised by the appellant is, therefore, rejected. Ground of appeal No.6: is general in nature and does not require any adjudication. 3. The Revenue department on aggrieved against the order impugned herein preferred its appeal on the following grounds. "1. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) was right

SHRI BILAS CHAND,BATHINDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD1(1), BATHINDA

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A. No. 399/Asr/2018 Assessment Year: 2016-17

sections, i.e., by mistake, and that he had revised his return accordingly on 17.7.2017 (refer para 5 of the assessment order). The said return, however, while retaining the claim for deduction u/s. 80C at Rs.1.50 lacs, altered that for deduction u/s. 80E to ‘Loss from house property’, at, though, the same sum of Rs.1,50,472, returning thus his income

SH. VARINDER KUMAR SOUL,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3(2), JALANDHAR

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 451(Asr)/2017 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Pan: Cvips 5218R

148 on 11.02.2014, allowed several opportunities to produce the so-called 'buyer' of the property (who is stated to have paid the assessee Rs. 31 lacs in cash and, further, without taking possession of the subject property), including four times before the Assessing Officer, to whom the matter was remanded, paying heed to the several requests by the assessee

SHRI HARBANS SINGH MANN,MANSA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1 (4), MANSA

In the result, the ground no

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No.129/Asr/2022 Assessment Year: 2010-11

property with the family members. The assessee received the amount through bank draft and through cash. Both the amount was deposited in bank account. The assessee relied on the copy of the agreement. But the purchaser denied the said agreement as it is I.T.A. No.129/Asr/2022 4 Assessment Year: 2010-11 own document of assessee. So, the ld. AO has treated

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

property in question. Backed by his aforesaid observations, the A.O was of the view that as the total consideration of Rs. 1,81,25,000/- (supra) had accrued to the assessee during the year under consideration, therefore, the LTCG therein arising to him, i.e, as provided in Sec. 45 r.w Sec. 48 of the Act was liable to be brought

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

property in question. Backed by his aforesaid observations, the A.O was of the view that as the total consideration of Rs. 1,81,25,000/- (supra) had accrued to the assessee during the year under consideration, therefore, the LTCG therein arising to him, i.e, as provided in Sec. 45 r.w Sec. 48 of the Act was liable to be brought

SHRI MOHAMMAD YAQOOB DAR,SRINAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -3 (2), SRINAGAR

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

148 on account of financial transaction in purchase of immovable property at Pune. The assessee could not provide any details or furnish return since assessee is suffering from Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). The assessment has been completed under section 144 at total income of 26,26,820/- making addition of 26,26,820/- on account of above referred financial

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

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

148 was filed by the appellant. Finally, the assessment was completed by the AO u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act. Simultaneously, penalty proceedings u/s 271F for non-filing of return of income was initiated by AO. The AO passed the penalty order on 21.05.2018 levying penalty of Rs.5,000/- u/s 271F of the Act. 6. Aggrieved by the penalty

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

148 of the Act Commissioner of Income Tax is not justified in exercise of power u/s 263 12 of the Act. Ar referred the decision in the case of PARGAT SINGH VS. ITO ITAT CHANDIGARH (2005) 95 TTJ 0295, DEWAS SILK MILLS VS CIT ITAT INDORE (2005) 92 TTJ 0481 (TM) . 22. Reliance is also placed upon the decision

SMT. PARMINDER KAUR,LUDHIANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, 3(3), JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

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

section 148 of the Income Tax Act. The assessing officer has sent the questionnaire along with the statutory notice to the assessee fixing the date of hearing as 26.12.2012. As per the assessment order none appeared on the date of hearing that is on 26.12.2012. Another I.T.A. No. 643/AMR/2017 2 notice was issued on 17 January 2013, however the said

SHRI SUKHEV SINGH ,BATHINDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(2), BATHINDA

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

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

148 was not served upon the assessee. So, the re- assessment is liable to be quashed. 5. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, as the learned AO has not considered the relevant documents supplied during the course of assessment proceedings. So, the re-opening as well as re- assessment is liable

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

148 and case was reopened. Thereafter, the assessment was completed with addition amount of Rs.1,61,43,719/- and Rs.4,29,431/- which works out total amount of Rs.1,75,73,150/- related to deposit in bank from unexplained source. The addition was framed u/s 69C of the Act. Aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before

SHRI ARNESH KUMAR SHAKAR EX. MLA,HOSHIARPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD, DASUYA

In the result, appeal of the assessee ITA No

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

property. Accordingly, the assessee purchased a residential house amount to Rs.35,64,000/- on dated 16.02.2010. The assesseehad contravened of provision of 54F of the Act for not investing the amount within two years from the date of receiving the payment therefore, the benefit of section 54F was withdrawn and the total sale amount of Rs.33 lacs was added back

SHRIMATI RITU KAPOOR,SRINAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-III(2), SRINAGAR

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

Section-148 was not served upon the appellant. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) has also erred in justifying the issue issuance of the notice on the address as mentioned in the Sale Deed of the property, as business and residential address of the appellant was duly mentioned in the return filed as of 14-13 Rajbagh Srinagar

SMT. ASHA CHHABRA,BATHINDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(1), BATHINDA

In the result, the ground no

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

house. 2.3 From the foregoing facts, it is held that the assessee has made unexplained investment in purchase of the property as well as in the construction thereon. 3.1 Accordingly, I have reasons to believe that the income of Rs.23,84,500/- ( Rs 18,37,500/-+ Rs.1,47,000/- + Rs. 4,00,000/-) of the assessee has escaped assessment