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

House Property. The assessee wrongly claimed deduction u/s 35AD(8)(c)(ii) of the Act at Rs. 116,48,50,757/- and wrongly set it off against declared income of the current year. Hence, the income of Rs.4.32.80,900/- which was chargeable to tax for the year under consideration escaped assessment on account of wrong presentation of facts

MAX FINANCIAL SERVICE LIMITED ,NAWANSHAHR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1, JALANDHAR

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

house property is occupied as residence by employees or its directors to 18 A.Y.2015-16 enable them to discharge their functions effectively and the letting out is subservient and incidental to the main business of the assessee, such an occupation amounts to an occupation and user of the property by the assessee itself for the purposes of its business. Clearly

SHRI BILAS CHAND,BATHINDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD1(1), BATHINDA

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A. No. 399/Asr/2018 Assessment Year: 2016-17

sections, i.e., by mistake, and that he had revised his return accordingly on 17.7.2017 (refer para 5 of the assessment order). The said return, however, while retaining the claim for deduction u/s. 80C at Rs.1.50 lacs, altered that for deduction u/s. 80E to ‘Loss from house property’, at, though, the same sum of Rs.1,50

ITO, WARD- 3(3), SRINAGAR vs. SMT. ZEENAB, BEMINA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue Department stands dismissed, whereas the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes on the aforesaid reasons stated above

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N.K.Choudhry

house property for purpose of residence. The ground of appeal raised by the appellant is, therefore, rejected. Ground of appeal No.6: is general in nature and does not require any adjudication. 3. The Revenue department on aggrieved against the order impugned herein preferred its appeal on the following grounds. "1. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) was right

SMT. ZEENAB,SRINAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(3),, SRINAGAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue Department stands dismissed, whereas the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes on the aforesaid reasons stated above

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N.K.Choudhry

house property for purpose of residence. The ground of appeal raised by the appellant is, therefore, rejected. Ground of appeal No.6: is general in nature and does not require any adjudication. 3. The Revenue department on aggrieved against the order impugned herein preferred its appeal on the following grounds. "1. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) was right

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

GEETA VASHISTHA,TALWANDI BHAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -3 (1), FEROZEPUR

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

Bench: Shri Udayan Das Gupta & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2018-19]

Housing Loan of Rs. 15 lacs through Union Bank of India vide Bank Draft no.35287057 dated 12.10.2017. But assessee in her reply dated 16.02.2023 has agreed to have sufficient cash at the time of purchase of immovable property but the source of which remain unexplained. From the above it is established that the assessee along with her husband has paid

SHRI HIRA LAL KADLABJU,GHAZIABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -1, JAMMU

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee bearing ITA No

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No.28/Asr/2023 Assessment Year: 2001-02

50,000/- the assessee explained that the same amount was originated from the sale of house property. But the ld. AO during assessment made addition and completed the assessment on substantive basis in the hands of father- in-law. On the other hand, the protective assessment was completed in the hands of son in law. Later

SH. ANISH BHAN,JAMMU vs. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, JAMMU

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee bearing ITA No

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No.28/Asr/2023 Assessment Year: 2001-02

50,000/- the assessee explained that the same amount was originated from the sale of house property. But the ld. AO during assessment made addition and completed the assessment on substantive basis in the hands of father- in-law. On the other hand, the protective assessment was completed in the hands of son in law. Later

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

50 ITR 1 (SC) held that the law is well-settled that the onus of proving the source of a sum of money found to have been received by an assessee is on him. Where the nature and source of a receipt, whether it be of money or other properly, cannot be satisfactorily explained by the assessee, it is open

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

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 to the rent received in cash. 4. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in making addition of Rs. 2,00,000/- on account of personal savings. 5. That

SHRI MOHAMMAD YAQOOB DAR,SRINAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -3 (2), SRINAGAR

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

section 144 at total income of 26,26,820/- making addition of 26,26,820/- on account of above referred financial transaction. The assessee filed an appeal against the stated order of Ld. A.O. with the LD. CIT (Appeals) Jammu and submitted the requisite documents substantiating the stated claim of the assessee. And the assessee has also duly stated

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

section 54F was withdrawn and the total sale amount of Rs.33 lacs was added back with the total income of the assessee. Further, the grievance of the assessee was that the case was reopened u/s 148 pursuing the order of the ld. CIT(A) for assessment year 2007-08 on the year the property was transferred. But the addition would

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

SHRIMATI HARMOHINDER KAUR,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, OFFICER CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Sh. N.K.Choudhry & Dr. A.L.Sainiassessment Year: 2009-10

property sold by the husband of the assessee was Rs.1,15,00,000/- as against the amount of Rs.29,50,000/- which had been shown as total consideration during the course of assessment proceedings. 5. The addition in this case is based upon diary noting and therefore issue involved relates to the value of such noting in diary/document. The apex

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.

section 53A of Transfer of Property Act. 8. That Ld AO has misapplied the facts and law in treating future and uncertain and unquantifiable benefits as so called consideration for alleged transfer and accordingly he has valued non existent property benefits for levy of capital gains. 9. That, the impugned agreement with the builders/ developers had been canceled

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.

section 53A of Transfer of Property Act. 8. That Ld AO has misapplied the facts and law in treating future and uncertain and unquantifiable benefits as so called consideration for alleged transfer and accordingly he has valued non existent property benefits for levy of capital gains. 9. That, the impugned agreement with the builders/ developers had been canceled