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)

section 80G(2)(B), the Central Government notifies places of public worship owing to their historical, archaeological, or artistic importance. The following Gurudwaras due to their historical importance have been notified u/s 80G(2)(B) by the Central Government. 1. Gurudwara Harminder Sahib, SO 1974, Dated 19.06.1965. 2. Gurudwara DukhNiwaran Sahib, SO 885, Dated 31.12.1975. 3. Gurudwara Shri Hemkunt Sahib

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

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

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

SHRIMATI JATINDER KAUR ( ALIAS AMRITA),JALANDHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JALANDHAR

In the result all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

43,99,885/- made by the A.O. u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. He failed to appreciate that when all the ingredients of section 68 of proving the cash credit were satisfied by the assessee the addition should have been deleted rather than upholding the same u/s 56(1)(vii) of the Act. 4 That even otherwise

SHRIMATI JATINDER KAUR (ALIAS AMRITA),JALANDHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JALANDHAR

In the result all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

43,99,885/- made by the A.O. u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. He failed to appreciate that when all the ingredients of section 68 of proving the cash credit were satisfied by the assessee the addition should have been deleted rather than upholding the same u/s 56(1)(vii) of the Act. 4 That even otherwise

SHRIMATI JATINDER KAUR(ALIAS AMRITA),JALANDHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JALANDHAR

In the result all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

43,99,885/- made by the A.O. u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. He failed to appreciate that when all the ingredients of section 68 of proving the cash credit were satisfied by the assessee the addition should have been deleted rather than upholding the same u/s 56(1)(vii) of the Act. 4 That even otherwise

SHRIMATI RAVINDER BAWA,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(3), JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Laliet Kumar & Dr. M. L. Meena

properties Private Ltd. Vs. CIT 109 ITR 229 are also relevant. “Where assessment order is in accordance with law, it cannot be termed to be erroneous, C.I.T Vs. Ashoka Traders SLP Civil no. 2374-2375 of 1995 dismissed by the Supreme Court 212 ITR (ST) 369.” 23. It was submitted that the observations of Principal Commissioner of Income

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

43,719/- and Rs.4,29,431/- which works out total amount of Rs.1,75,73,150/- related to deposit in bank from unexplained source. The addition was framed u/s 69C of the Act. Aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) allowed the assessee’s appeal and delete the addition. Being aggrieved the revenue

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

house charges. 8.3. In the result Ground-2 of the revenue is allowed for statistical purpose. 9.Ground No. 3 of the revenue: - 3. The Ld. C1T(A), Jammu has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 74,31,428/- on account of depreciation of Wooden Partition by relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme court in case

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

house charges. 8.3. In the result Ground-2 of the revenue is allowed for statistical purpose. 9.Ground No. 3 of the revenue: - 3. The Ld. C1T(A), Jammu has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 74,31,428/- on account of depreciation of Wooden Partition by relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme court in case

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

house charges. 8.3. In the result Ground-2 of the revenue is allowed for statistical purpose. 9.Ground No. 3 of the revenue: - 3. The Ld. C1T(A), Jammu has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 74,31,428/- on account of depreciation of Wooden Partition by relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme court in case

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

house charges. 8.3. In the result Ground-2 of the revenue is allowed for statistical purpose. 9.Ground No. 3 of the revenue: - 3. The Ld. C1T(A), Jammu has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 74,31,428/- on account of depreciation of Wooden Partition by relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme court in case

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

house charges. 8.3. In the result Ground-2 of the revenue is allowed for statistical purpose. 9.Ground No. 3 of the revenue: - 3. The Ld. C1T(A), Jammu has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 74,31,428/- on account of depreciation of Wooden Partition by relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme court in case

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

house charges. 8.3. In the result Ground-2 of the revenue is allowed for statistical purpose. 9.Ground No. 3 of the revenue: - 3. The Ld. C1T(A), Jammu has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 74,31,428/- on account of depreciation of Wooden Partition by relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme court in case

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

house charges. 8.3. In the result Ground-2 of the revenue is allowed for statistical purpose. 9.Ground No. 3 of the revenue: - 3. The Ld. C1T(A), Jammu has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 74,31,428/- on account of depreciation of Wooden Partition by relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme court in case

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

section 142(1) no. ITBA/AST/F/142(1)/2019- I.T.A. No. 187/Asr/2021 4 20/1018063076(1) along with annexure dated 18.09.2019 calling for information and documents. In compliance to said notice, the assessee replied through online that she deposited cash during demonetization period from the withdrawal made by her form HDFC saving account from Chheharta branch as detailed below: Sr. Date of withdrawal