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

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

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

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

20,97,215/- and balance has been funded by the son of assessee (Farooq Ahmad Dar). Thus substantiating the fact that the property was actually bought by the assessee's son and so addition made on that account to assessee income is not justified. The Ld. CIT (A) recorded the submissions made by the assessee but however dismissed the appeal

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR vs. SHRI JATINDER SINGH BEDI, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue, ITA No 90/Asr/2020 is dismissed

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

20 kanal was taken as lease. The ld. counsel fully relied on the order of the ld. CIT(A), page-17 which is extracted as below: “The facts of the case, the basis of addition made by the AO and the arguments of the AR during the course of appellate proceedings have been considered. The AR has argued that while

SHRI BHAVNOOR SINGH BEDI,JALANDHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue, ITA No 90/Asr/2020 is dismissed

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

20 kanal was taken as lease. The ld. counsel fully relied on the order of the ld. CIT(A), page-17 which is extracted as below: “The facts of the case, the basis of addition made by the AO and the arguments of the AR during the course of appellate proceedings have been considered. The AR has argued that while

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR vs. SHRI BHAVNOOR SINGH BEDI, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue, ITA No 90/Asr/2020 is dismissed

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

20 kanal was taken as lease. The ld. counsel fully relied on the order of the ld. CIT(A), page-17 which is extracted as below: “The facts of the case, the basis of addition made by the AO and the arguments of the AR during the course of appellate proceedings have been considered. The AR has argued that while

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR vs. SHRI BHAVNOOR SINGH BEDI, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue, ITA No 90/Asr/2020 is dismissed

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

20 kanal was taken as lease. The ld. counsel fully relied on the order of the ld. CIT(A), page-17 which is extracted as below: “The facts of the case, the basis of addition made by the AO and the arguments of the AR during the course of appellate proceedings have been considered. The AR has argued that while

SHRI BHAVNOOR SINGH BEDI,JALANDHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue, ITA No 90/Asr/2020 is dismissed

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

20 kanal was taken as lease. The ld. counsel fully relied on the order of the ld. CIT(A), page-17 which is extracted as below: “The facts of the case, the basis of addition made by the AO and the arguments of the AR during the course of appellate proceedings have been considered. The AR has argued that while

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR vs. SHRI JATINDER SINGH BEDI , JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue, ITA No 90/Asr/2020 is dismissed

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

20 kanal was taken as lease. The ld. counsel fully relied on the order of the ld. CIT(A), page-17 which is extracted as below: “The facts of the case, the basis of addition made by the AO and the arguments of the AR during the course of appellate proceedings have been considered. The AR has argued that while

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

M/S SADHU SINGH HAMDARD TRUST,JALANDHAR vs. THE ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR

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

20,000/- per month being neither correct on facts nor in law would not hold good. When finding of the Tribunal to the effect that excessive remuneration was paid to these two specified persons, being bad on facts and in law, is set aside and order of C1T(A) is restored, allowing benefit of exemption to the assessee under Section

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,JALANDHAR vs. M/S. SADHU SINGH HAMDARD TRUST, JALANDHAR

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

20,000/- per month being neither correct on facts nor in law would not hold good. When finding of the Tribunal to the effect that excessive remuneration was paid to these two specified persons, being bad on facts and in law, is set aside and order of C1T(A) is restored, allowing benefit of exemption to the assessee under Section

M/S. SADHU SINGH HAMDARD TRUST,JALANDHAR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR

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

20,000/- per month being neither correct on facts nor in law would not hold good. When finding of the Tribunal to the effect that excessive remuneration was paid to these two specified persons, being bad on facts and in law, is set aside and order of C1T(A) is restored, allowing benefit of exemption to the assessee under Section

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,JALANDHAR vs. M/S. SADHU SINGH HAMDARD TRUST, JALANDHAR

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

20,000/- per month being neither correct on facts nor in law would not hold good. When finding of the Tribunal to the effect that excessive remuneration was paid to these two specified persons, being bad on facts and in law, is set aside and order of C1T(A) is restored, allowing benefit of exemption to the assessee under Section

DCIT, JALANDHAR vs. M/S. SADHU SINGH HAMDARD TRUST, JALANDHAR

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

20,000/- per month being neither correct on facts nor in law would not hold good. When finding of the Tribunal to the effect that excessive remuneration was paid to these two specified persons, being bad on facts and in law, is set aside and order of C1T(A) is restored, allowing benefit of exemption to the assessee under Section

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR vs. M/S. SADHU SINGH HAMDARD TRUST,, JALANDHAR

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

20,000/- per month being neither correct on facts nor in law would not hold good. When finding of the Tribunal to the effect that excessive remuneration was paid to these two specified persons, being bad on facts and in law, is set aside and order of C1T(A) is restored, allowing benefit of exemption to the assessee under Section

M/S. SADHU SINGH HAMDARD TRUST,JALANDHAR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR

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

20,000/- per month being neither correct on facts nor in law would not hold good. When finding of the Tribunal to the effect that excessive remuneration was paid to these two specified persons, being bad on facts and in law, is set aside and order of C1T(A) is restored, allowing benefit of exemption to the assessee under Section

M/S. SADHU SINGH HAMDARD TRUST,JALANDHAR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR

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

20,000/- per month being neither correct on facts nor in law would not hold good. When finding of the Tribunal to the effect that excessive remuneration was paid to these two specified persons, being bad on facts and in law, is set aside and order of C1T(A) is restored, allowing benefit of exemption to the assessee under Section