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

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961,( henceforth the Act ) both dated 29.01.2024 , which has emanated from the orders of AO, Circle Ferozepur, dated 30.12.2019 passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act (for A.Y. 2014- 15) and order dated 28.12.2019 passed u/s 143(3) of the Act ( for AY 2017-18 ). I.T.A. No. 103 & 104/Asr/202 Assessment Years

SHIROMANI GURDWARA PARBANDHAK COMMITTEE vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I,

In the result the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenav.S. Cit – I Shirmoni Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee Amritsar Teja Singh Mundri Hall Sri Amritsar Pan:Aants1981K (Appellant) (Respondent)

250 ITR 39 (AP) g. Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanam vs CCIT (2001) 251 ITR 849 (AP)“ 6. Registration u/s 12AA: An issue raised by the Revenue during the course of argument. a. In this regard, it is pertinent to mention that as per paragraph 2.3 of Order of Ld CIT, the only issue in the present case of was of application

SH. DIDAR SINGH S/O SH. PREM SINGH,KAPURTHALA vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KAPURTHALA

In the result, the assessee succeeds

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N.K.Choudhryita No.542(Asr)/2016 Assessment Year:2008-09

250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called as ‘the Act’). 2. The following grounds of appeal raised by the assessee. “1. That the order of the CIT (A) is against the facts on record and provisions of law thus the same is arbitrary, bad in the eyes of law and is liable to be struck down

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

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

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which has emanated from the order of the AO, Ward 5(4), Amritsar passed u/s 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

SH. RAGHUNATH SAHAI PURI(DECD),PATHANKOT vs. THE DEPTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PATHANKOT

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

Bench: Sh. N. K. Choudhry & Sh. O. P. Meenai.T.A. No. 633/Asr/2014 Assessment Year: 2007-08

250(6) of the I.T. Act, 1961 dated 26.08.2014 for the Assessment Year 2007-08. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in confirming the levy of penalty of Rs.39.80 lacs on deceased assessee, as imposed

SHRI GURBINDER SINGH MAHAL,AMRITSAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-IV ( 2), AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

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

250(4)] through banks instead of disposing off the appeal for non-appearance without adjudicating on merits. 7. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, or alter any of the grounds of appeal.” I.T.A. No.22/Asr/2023 4 Assessment Year: 2014-15 2. The case was called for hearing, first, the ld. DR filed an adjournment petition before the bench. But after

SMT. SATYAWATI MARWAHA THROUGH LEGAL HEIR SH. CHANDER SHEIKHAR MARWAHA,JALANDHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal for Asstt

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

250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which has emanated from the order of the 2 I.T.A. Nos. 346 & 347/Asr/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 DCIT, Central Circle, Jalandhar passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act, 1961 dated 29.03.2022. 2. Grounds of appeal taken by the assessee in ITA No. 346/Asr/2024 for A.Y. 2014-15 in Form

SMT. SATYAWATI MARWAHA THROUGH LEGAL HEIR SH, CHANDER SHEIKHAR MARWAHA,JALANDHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal for Asstt

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

250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which has emanated from the order of the 2 I.T.A. Nos. 346 & 347/Asr/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 DCIT, Central Circle, Jalandhar passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act, 1961 dated 29.03.2022. 2. Grounds of appeal taken by the assessee in ITA No. 346/Asr/2024 for A.Y. 2014-15 in Form

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

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without appreciating facts of the case on record. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in making the addition under 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

SHRI SATBIR SINGH BHULLAR,AMRITSAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- 5 (4), AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

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

250(6) of the Income Tax Act, is bad in law as the same has been disposed off without examining the merits of the case and is against the principles of natural justice. 3. That the CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 737948/- on account of cash deposited in ICICI Bank Account

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

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

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 explained

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

250 (6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in brevity the Act) for assessment year 2010-11. The impugned order was emanated from the order of Income Tax Officer, Ward, Dasuya,(in brevity ‘the AO’) order passed u/s143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act. I.T.A. No. 6/Asr/2021 2 Assessment Year: 2010-11 2. The assessee filed the appeal with delay

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

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

250/-. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee assailed the order passed by the A.O u/s 148 r.w.s 143(3), dated 30.03.2016 before the CIT(A). Before the CIT(A), the assessee assailed the validity of the jurisdiction that was assumed by the Harsh Vardhan Vs. DCIT – ITA No. 308/Asr/2018 5 A.O for reopening his case u/s 147 of the Act, inter alia

ASHWANI KUMAR,UDHAMPUR vs. ADDL. CIT, RANGE -2, JAMMU (AO), JAMMU

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

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which has arisen from the order of the Addl. CIT, Range-2, Jammu imposing penalty of Rs.16,35,000/- u/s 271D of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2 I.T.A. No. 311/Asr/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 2. Grounds of appeal taken by the assessee in Form No. 36 are as follows: “1. That

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

250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which has emanated from the order of the AO DCIT, Central Circle, Amritsar, passed u/s 143(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961 dated 28.09.2021. 2 I.T.A. No. 542/Asr/2024 Dashmesh Timber and Furniture House v. Dy. CIT 2. Grounds of appeal preferred by the assessee in the memorandum of appeal are as under

LATE SHRI PARVEEN KOCHHAR LEAGAL HEIR KAMINI CHOUDHARY ,AMRITSAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -5 (4), AMRITSAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee bearing ITA 187/Asr/2021 is allowed

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

250(6) of the Income Tax Act 1961, [in brevity the Act] for A.Y.2017- 18. The impugned order was originated from the order of the ld. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(4), Amritsar (in brevity the AO), order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act date of order 16.12.2019. 2. Brief fact of the case is that the assessee

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

250(6) of the Income Tax Act 1961, [in brevity the Act] for A.Y. 2013-14.The impugned order I.T.A. No.695/Asr/2017 2 Assessment Year: 2013-14 was originated from the order of the ld.Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1) Bathinda, (in brevity the AO) order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act date of order 28.07.2015. The hearing of the appeal