VEENA KHINDRI,SRINAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, SRINAGAR

In the result, Assessee's appeal is allowed

65,180/-.\nThe Assessing Officer vide order u/s 143(1) of the\nIncome Tax Act, 1961 hereinafter referred to as the Act\ndated 28.10.2022 and raised the disputed demand of\nRs. 3,770/-\nThe appellant is in appeal against the said order.”\n7.\nDuring the course of hearing before us, the ld. Counsel for the\nAssessee has filed written submissions

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

65,73,150/-(Rs. 1,61,43,719 + Rs. I.T.A. No. 82/Asr/2016 3 & C.O. 11/Asr/2016 4,29,431) by admitting additional evidence without giving a specific opportunity of being heard to the A O. to rebut the same, which is in contravention of Rule 46A(3). iv) On the facts and in the circumstancesofthe case, the Ld.CIT(A)-2, Amritsar

SMT. GURJEET KAUR,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- IV (2),, JALANDHAR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our

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

House Jalandhar Cantt Road, Jalandhar PAN: AIKPK 9383L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sh. Surinder Mahajan, CA Respondent by: Sh. Sunil Gautam, CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 22.12.2021 Date of Pronouncement: 21.02.2022 ORDER PER BENCH : The present appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the respective orders passed by the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-2, Jalandhar, dated 19.07.2017, which

SMT. GURJEET KAUR,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- IV (2),, JALANDHAR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our

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

House Jalandhar Cantt Road, Jalandhar PAN: AIKPK 9383L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sh. Surinder Mahajan, CA Respondent by: Sh. Sunil Gautam, CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 22.12.2021 Date of Pronouncement: 21.02.2022 ORDER PER BENCH : The present appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the respective orders passed by the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-2, Jalandhar, dated 19.07.2017, which

DASHMESH TIMBER AND FURNITURE HOUSE,AJNALA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, AMRITSAR

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

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Krinwant Sahay

65 lakhs, over and above the normal business profits), has been assessed (accepted) in scrutiny proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Act, 1961, after examination of regular books of accounts supported by relevant bills and vouchers, but the surrender amount of Rs.65 lakhs , has been treated as deemed income u/s 69 A of the Act, 1961, and subjected

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

65 N.A. of the N.A Bombay Land Revenue Code was obtained for the non- agricultural use of the land? If so, when and by whom (the vendor or the vendee)? Whether land? If the permission was in respect of a portion of the land and if it was obtained in the past, what was the nature of the user

SHRI SUKHEV SINGH ,BATHINDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(2), BATHINDA

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

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

house on this benami plot with his own money out of the sale proceeds of the agricultural land. So, the assessee is entitled to deduction u/s 54F of the Act. This is further supported by the fact that the assessee was present in the Tehsil for the registration of purchase deed not the wife. 9. That in any case