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

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

66) c) Copy of A/c No. 0242002101004903. (Paper Book Page No. 67) d) Copy of A/c No. 0242003171104. (Paper Book Page No. 68) e) Copy of A/c No. 0242000125537289. (Paper Book Page No. 69) f) Copy of cash book of branch from 30.06.2010 to 10.07.2010. (Paper Book Page No. 71 to 117) g) Details of FDR’s in the name

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 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. 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

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

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

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

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

properties, his father Sh. Harjit Singh such other person; (PAN: FPHPS8530E) is ready to pay taxes on the same.’ (b) every person who is deemed to The appellant is not deemed to the assessee on behalf of the father Sh. be an assessee under any Harjit Singh. The provisions of deemed assessee are only applicable in a provision of this

SH. GURJINDER SINGH,AMRITSAR vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1, AMRITSAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

House property, Income from Business/Profession” and ‘Income from other sources”. Though, the nature of activities in both the proprietorship concerns is same i.e. wholesale trading of products of “Haldiram’s” but in M/s Pioneer Sales, the gross profit has been shown @ 3.47% whereas in M/s Apex Marketing it is 4%. The AO has failed to verify the reasons for difference

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)

66,000/- for AY 2012-13, Rs.1,64,500/- for AY 2013-14, Rs.2,28,500/- for AY 2014- 15 & Rs.4,53,500/- for AY 2015-16. First, we take up appeal for AY 2011-12 which arises out of an order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC [CIT(A)] dated 28-03-2023 partially confirming impugned penalty

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)

66,000/- for AY 2012-13, Rs.1,64,500/- for AY 2013-14, Rs.2,28,500/- for AY 2014- 15 & Rs.4,53,500/- for AY 2015-16. First, we take up appeal for AY 2011-12 which arises out of an order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC [CIT(A)] dated 28-03-2023 partially confirming impugned penalty

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)

66,000/- for AY 2012-13, Rs.1,64,500/- for AY 2013-14, Rs.2,28,500/- for AY 2014- 15 & Rs.4,53,500/- for AY 2015-16. First, we take up appeal for AY 2011-12 which arises out of an order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC [CIT(A)] dated 28-03-2023 partially confirming impugned penalty

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)

66,000/- for AY 2012-13, Rs.1,64,500/- for AY 2013-14, Rs.2,28,500/- for AY 2014- 15 & Rs.4,53,500/- for AY 2015-16. First, we take up appeal for AY 2011-12 which arises out of an order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC [CIT(A)] dated 28-03-2023 partially confirming impugned penalty

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)

66,000/- for AY 2012-13, Rs.1,64,500/- for AY 2013-14, Rs.2,28,500/- for AY 2014- 15 & Rs.4,53,500/- for AY 2015-16. First, we take up appeal for AY 2011-12 which arises out of an order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC [CIT(A)] dated 28-03-2023 partially confirming impugned penalty

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 MOHD MANZOOR,RAJOURI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -2 (3), JAMMU

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

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

1. That the addition made on account of cash deposit amounting to Rs. 1124000/- in J&K Saving Bank Account no 0659040100000145 and 0659020100000018during demonetization period and Rs. 752402/- on account of NP is bad in law and against the facts of the case. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition