ESTATE OF SH. JAGIR SINGH BHULLAR,AMRITSAR. vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, TARN TARAN

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

Bench: Shri N.K. Choudhry, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.306/Asr/2014 & 591/Asr/2015 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Estate Of Sh. Jagir Singh Bhullar Vs. Income Tax Officer, Through S. Jasbir—Singh Ward-1(3), Bhullar, Tarn Taran, E-250 Ranjit Avenue, Amritsar, Punjab. Punjab.

271(1) (c ),respectively, of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the ‘Act’). 2. Since these two appeals relate to the same assessee and same assessment year, therefore these have been clubbed and heard together and a consolidated order is being passed for the sake of convenience and brevity. ITA Nos.306/ASR/2014 & 591/ASR/2015 Assessment Year: 2007-08 Estate

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, TARN TARAN vs. ESTATE OF LATE SH. JAGIR SINGH BHULLAR, TARN TARAN

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

Bench: Shri N.K. Choudhry, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.306/Asr/2014 & 591/Asr/2015 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Estate Of Sh. Jagir Singh Bhullar Vs. Income Tax Officer, Through S. Jasbir—Singh Ward-1(3), Bhullar, Tarn Taran, E-250 Ranjit Avenue, Amritsar, Punjab. Punjab.

271(1) (c ),respectively, of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the ‘Act’). 2. Since these two appeals relate to the same assessee and same assessment year, therefore these have been clubbed and heard together and a consolidated order is being passed for the sake of convenience and brevity. ITA Nos.306/ASR/2014 & 591/ASR/2015 Assessment Year: 2007-08 Estate

M/S. JAMMU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,,JAMMU ( J&K) vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMMU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of the department is dismissed

Bench: Sh. N. S. Saini & Sh. N. K. Choudhryita No. 498/Asr./2013 : Asstt. Year : 2005-06 Jammu Development Authority, Vs Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vikas Bhawan, Rail Head Tax, Circle-I, Complex, Jammu, J & K Jammu (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadfj7335A Ita No. 494/Asr./2013 : Asstt. Year : 2005-06 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vs Jammu Development Authority, Tax, Circle-I, Vikas Bhawan, Rail Head Jammu Complex, Jammu, J & K (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcp1720E Assessee By : Shri. R. K. Gupta, Ca & Shri. Vasu Gupta, Ca Revenue By : Shri. M. P. Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing :21.02.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.03.2019 Order Per N. S. Saini: These Are The Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee & Revenue Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Dated 06.05.2013, Jammu.

house property and deduction @ 30% of the gross amount is allowable under section 24 of the Income Tax Act, which is prayed to be allowed.” 43. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has observed as under: “4.9 Ground of Appeal No. 2.31 relates to treatment of rental income u/s 24 of the Act and allowance of 30% deduction. There

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMMU vs. M/S. JAMMU DEVELPMENT AUTHORITY,, JAMMU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of the department is dismissed

Bench: Sh. N. S. Saini & Sh. N. K. Choudhryita No. 498/Asr./2013 : Asstt. Year : 2005-06 Jammu Development Authority, Vs Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vikas Bhawan, Rail Head Tax, Circle-I, Complex, Jammu, J & K Jammu (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadfj7335A Ita No. 494/Asr./2013 : Asstt. Year : 2005-06 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vs Jammu Development Authority, Tax, Circle-I, Vikas Bhawan, Rail Head Jammu Complex, Jammu, J & K (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcp1720E Assessee By : Shri. R. K. Gupta, Ca & Shri. Vasu Gupta, Ca Revenue By : Shri. M. P. Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing :21.02.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.03.2019 Order Per N. S. Saini: These Are The Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee & Revenue Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Dated 06.05.2013, Jammu.

house property and deduction @ 30% of the gross amount is allowable under section 24 of the Income Tax Act, which is prayed to be allowed.” 43. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has observed as under: “4.9 Ground of Appeal No. 2.31 relates to treatment of rental income u/s 24 of the Act and allowance of 30% deduction. There

M/S RAJINDER KOUL HUF,SRINAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3 (2), SRINAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing I

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

section 25B is as below:- “[Special provision for arrears of rent received. 25B. Where the assessee— (a) is the owner of any property consisting of any buildings or lands appurtenant thereto which has been let to a tenant; and I.T.A. No.343/Asr/2018 4 (b) has received any amount, by way of arrears of rent from such property, not charged to income

SMT. KAMAL GANDHI,NAWANSHEHAR vs. A.C.I.T, CENTRAL CIRCLE- II, JALANDHAR

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi. T. A. No. 458/(Asr)/2017 Assessment Year: 2010-11

house. Further, in this regard, we may clarify; the ld. counsel during hearing contending that Explanation 5 to section 271(1)(c), alluded to by the ld. CIT(A), is not applicable as the search was after 31.05.2007, and even as observed during hearing, that would be wholly inconsequential as Explanation 5A, a pari materia provision, applicable to searches after

HIMANI GOYAL SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, BATHINDA

The appeal stand allowed

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member), SHRI UDAYAN DAS GUPTA (Judicial Member)

house property loss and also withdrew claim of deduction under Chapter VIA. The Ld. AO accepted the returns but levied penalties in similar background. The Ld. CIT(A), rejected reasonable cause claim of the assessee as made u/s 273B and partially confirmed the penalties, inter-alia, on the ground that but for the reopening of the assessment, the assessee would

HIMANI GOYA SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, BATHINDA

The appeal stand allowed

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member), SHRI UDAYAN DAS GUPTA (Judicial Member)

house property loss and also withdrew claim of deduction under Chapter VIA. The Ld. AO accepted the returns but levied penalties in similar background. The Ld. CIT(A), rejected reasonable cause claim of the assessee as made u/s 273B and partially confirmed the penalties, inter-alia, on the ground that but for the reopening of the assessment, the assessee would

HIMANI GOYAL SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, BATHINDA

The appeal stand allowed

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member), SHRI UDAYAN DAS GUPTA (Judicial Member)

house property loss and also withdrew claim of deduction under Chapter VIA. The Ld. AO accepted the returns but levied penalties in similar background. The Ld. CIT(A), rejected reasonable cause claim of the assessee as made u/s 273B and partially confirmed the penalties, inter-alia, on the ground that but for the reopening of the assessment, the assessee would

HIMANI GOYAL SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, BATHINDA

The appeal stand allowed

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member), SHRI UDAYAN DAS GUPTA (Judicial Member)

house property loss and also withdrew claim of deduction under Chapter VIA. The Ld. AO accepted the returns but levied penalties in similar background. The Ld. CIT(A), rejected reasonable cause claim of the assessee as made u/s 273B and partially confirmed the penalties, inter-alia, on the ground that but for the reopening of the assessment, the assessee would

HIMANI GOYAL SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, BATHINDA

The appeal stand allowed

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member), SHRI UDAYAN DAS GUPTA (Judicial Member)

house property loss and also withdrew claim of deduction under Chapter VIA. The Ld. AO accepted the returns but levied penalties in similar background. The Ld. CIT(A), rejected reasonable cause claim of the assessee as made u/s 273B and partially confirmed the penalties, inter-alia, on the ground that but for the reopening of the assessment, the assessee would

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

property of M/s. Defence Services Co-op. House Building Society Ltd., Mohali to M/s. Hash Builders Pvt. Ltd., Chandigarh and M/s. Tata Housing Development Company Ltd., Mumbai on 27.04.2007 for a total consideration of Rs.1,81,25,000/- including the value of flat, be not charged to tax u/s 45 read with section 48 of the Act. 5. The assessee

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

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

house she resided with her daughter at 618. Phase 2, Urban Estate, Chandigarh Road, Ludhiana. In the meantime the department has issued a notice for verification of mutual fund transaction for an investment of Rs.6,00,000. She could not receive the notice as she has left Jalandhar. The assessing officer has made the best judgment assessment

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

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

SH. KIRPAL SINGH,KAPURTHALA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, KAPURTHALA

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

Bench: Shri L.P. Sahu, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.167/Asr/2017 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2010-2011) Sh. Kirpal Singh, Vs. Ito, Kapurthala-1, S/O Ravel Singh, Kapurthala H.No.644, Guru Nanak Nagar, Kapurthala स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Panno. : Bsyps 8252 D (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Sandeep Vijh, Ca राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Charan Dass, Dr

271 that suspicion however strong cannot take place of proof. When the assessee had given reply for specific withdrawals, there was no reason to disbelieve the same. It was not justified on the 5 part of t he assessing officer to believe part of the statement and disbelieve part of the statement. The reduction of the amount received from

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

271(1)(c) of the Act, dated 27.08.2014. We shall first take up the appeal filed by the 2 Brijinder Pal Singh Bhullar Vs. ITO, Ward 1(3), Bathinda ITA Nos. 671 & 672/Asr/2019 – A.Y 2008-09 assessee against the quantum assessment. The assessee has assailed the impugned order on the following grounds of appeal before us : “1. That

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

271(1)(c) of the Act, dated 27.08.2014. We shall first take up the appeal filed by the 2 Brijinder Pal Singh Bhullar Vs. ITO, Ward 1(3), Bathinda ITA Nos. 671 & 672/Asr/2019 – A.Y 2008-09 assessee against the quantum assessment. The assessee has assailed the impugned order on the following grounds of appeal before us : “1. That