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

271(1)(c) of the Act. 5. The ld. Counsel for the assessee vehemently argued and filed written submission on the dated of 28.07.2022 and 27.06.2022 which are kept in record. The ld. Counsel argued that the arrear rent was declared by the assessee during the filing of the return in earlier years. The said arrear rent

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

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

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

1. In this case the assessee filed the return of income for the assessment year 2009-2010, however the case of the assessee was reopened under section 147 read with 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