MESERS AMARNARTH AGGARWAL BUILDERS PVT. LTD.,BATHINDA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-1, BATHINDA

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

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

housing project. During the assessment proceedings, it was noticed that the assessee has debited Rs.1,10,00,000/- under the head ‘Amount written off paid against advance of land.’ The Revenue asked to explain the nature of expenses which was debited, As per the statement of the assessee that the assessee along with other two other entities entered into

SHRI MANMOHAN SINGH KAPUR,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

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

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

36 which relates to the deletion of additions of Rs.2,46,99,200/- by the ld. first appellate authority. 4. Brief facts emerging from records are that the assessee has inherited immovable properties (residential house) on the death of his father in the year 1991, (through will). One of the properties is situated at Joshi Colony, Amritsar, which was purchased

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

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

36 Gobind Niwas, G.T Road, Jalandhar, while for that as per Form No 26AS was 22/3, Ajit Road, Jalandhar Cantt. It was submitted by the assessee that as the Notice u/s 148 was issued at a wrong address, therefore, the notice server had returned the same with the remarks, viz. “Shrimaan Ji, is kothi mein is naam ka kohi nahin

SMT. INDERMEET BAINS W/O SH. D.S. BAINS,BATHINDA vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , BATHINDA

The appeal of the assessee is disposed of in the term indicated as above

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

36 of the Paper Book. 12. 28.03.2019 Order passed by PCIT u/s 263 of the Act wherein case of the assessee was set aside to the file of the AO. Copy placed at pages 37 to 41 of the Paper Book. 14. It is apparently clear from the above table and the paper book pages 42 to 48 filed before

ASSISTANT COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-1, JAMMU vs. MESERS JAMMU & KASHMIR BANK LIMITED , SRINAGAR

In the result, the ground No

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

36(1) (viia) in respect to addition by the ld. AO. 6. Being aggrieved both assessee and revenue filed cross appeals before us. 7.Ground No. 1 of the revenue: 1. The Ld. CIT(A), Jammu has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 9,84,41,850/- u/s 40(a)(ia) on account of non-deduction of interest paid

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, JAMMU vs. MESERS JAMMU & KASHMIR BANK LIMITED , SRINAGAR

In the result, the ground No

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

36(1) (viia) in respect to addition by the ld. AO. 6. Being aggrieved both assessee and revenue filed cross appeals before us. 7.Ground No. 1 of the revenue: 1. The Ld. CIT(A), Jammu has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 9,84,41,850/- u/s 40(a)(ia) on account of non-deduction of interest paid

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, JAMMU, SRINAGAR vs. MESERS JAMMU & KASHMIR BANK LIMITED , SRINAGAR

In the result, the ground No

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

36(1) (viia) in respect to addition by the ld. AO. 6. Being aggrieved both assessee and revenue filed cross appeals before us. 7.Ground No. 1 of the revenue: 1. The Ld. CIT(A), Jammu has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 9,84,41,850/- u/s 40(a)(ia) on account of non-deduction of interest paid

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX , CIRCLE -1,, JAMMU vs. THE JAMMU & KASHMIR BANK LTD.,, SRINAGAR

In the result, the ground No

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

36(1) (viia) in respect to addition by the ld. AO. 6. Being aggrieved both assessee and revenue filed cross appeals before us. 7.Ground No. 1 of the revenue: 1. The Ld. CIT(A), Jammu has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 9,84,41,850/- u/s 40(a)(ia) on account of non-deduction of interest paid

THE JAMMU AND KASHMIR BANK LIMITED,SRINAGAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, JAMMU

In the result, the ground No

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

36(1) (viia) in respect to addition by the ld. AO. 6. Being aggrieved both assessee and revenue filed cross appeals before us. 7.Ground No. 1 of the revenue: 1. The Ld. CIT(A), Jammu has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 9,84,41,850/- u/s 40(a)(ia) on account of non-deduction of interest paid

THE DY. COMMISSIONER INCOME-TAX, JAMMU vs. M/S. THE JAMMU & KASHMIR BANK LTD,, SRINAGAR

In the result, the ground No

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

36(1) (viia) in respect to addition by the ld. AO. 6. Being aggrieved both assessee and revenue filed cross appeals before us. 7.Ground No. 1 of the revenue: 1. The Ld. CIT(A), Jammu has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 9,84,41,850/- u/s 40(a)(ia) on account of non-deduction of interest paid

THE DY. COMMISSIONER INCOME-TAX, JAMMU vs. M/S. THE JAMMU & KASHMIR BANK LTD,, SRINAGAR

In the result, the ground No

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

36(1) (viia) in respect to addition by the ld. AO. 6. Being aggrieved both assessee and revenue filed cross appeals before us. 7.Ground No. 1 of the revenue: 1. The Ld. CIT(A), Jammu has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 9,84,41,850/- u/s 40(a)(ia) on account of non-deduction of interest paid

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

36. The relevant entries evidencing the fact that cash/ cheque was 224-234 deposited in the appellant’s bank account out of sale proceeds from property owned by Harjit Singh taking into consideration the registered POA (Emphasis supplied) 5. The remand report was called for from the AO. The remand report of the AO is duly annexed in APB page

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

2. The Learned CIT A has erred in law and facts and circumstances of the case in confirming the addition of Rs. 20,57, 170/- received through banking channels, as per information provided by the Bank to the assessing officer out of above addition of Rs. 36,57,710/- I.T.A. No. 82/Asr/2016 4 & C.O. 11/Asr/2016 3. The Learned

BALBIR SINGH GORAYA,BATALA vs. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, AMRITSAR.

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

House No. 1043, Range-II VillageChah Bohrawalla Amritsar Batala [PAN: AMUPG1406C] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sh. Tarun Bansal, Advocate Respondent by: S/sh. Rahul Dhawan, CIT-DR & Rohit Mehra, D.R Date of Hearing: 21.12.2021 Date of Pronouncement: 21.02.2022 ORDER PER RAVISH SOOD, JM : The present appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the respective orders passed by the Commissioner

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

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

36 are as follows: “1. That the order under appeal is bad in law and facts of the case. 2. That substantial question of law regarding the interpretation of section 269SS was raised before the AO as well as appellate authority but the same was ignored without giving any reason and hence the order is liable to be quashed