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.1,50,472, returning thus his income

INDIAN TOOLS TECHNOLOGY CENTRE ,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFICER WARD II(1), JALANDHAR

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

80,000/- was thus not an expenditure laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purpose of making or earning such income, i.e., Bank interest, so as to fall within sec 57(iii). The assessee has not incurred any expenditure to earn interest income from Bank against fixed deposit. Therefore, the deduction u/s.57 claimed by the assessee amounting

M/S ACTIVE TOOLS (P). LIMITED,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -II, JALANDHAR

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

house 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

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

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 85A would be discharging and performing various religious duties, ceremonies in connection with the gurdwaras along with efficient management of property and income of Gurdwaras and endowments thereof . 22. Now the question arises whether a statutory body which is created by the Statutory for the purpose of performing religious duties, administration of properties, income and endowment, can be said

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

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 internal

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

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 internal

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

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 internal

SHRI SUBASH GUPTA,JAMMU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, JAMMU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

house property and other source income by way of bank interest. Apart from above the assessee is engaged in the business of purchase and sales of immovable properties and investment in immovable property are held as stock in trade and reflected in audited balance sheet and income tax returns year to year. 4. Return of income filed in regular course

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

SHRI RAJESH TIWARI,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, JALANDHAR

In the result, the ITA No

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

house property, without considering the facts of the case and without observing the principles of natural justice. s. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Hon’ble CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld. Assessing Officer in making an addition of Rs. 17,88,806/-, without considering

SHRI RJAN BATRA,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, JALANDHAR

In the result, the ITA No

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

house property, without considering the facts of the case and without observing the principles of natural justice. s. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Hon’ble CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld. Assessing Officer in making an addition of Rs. 17,88,806/-, without considering

SHRI RAJESH TIWARI,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, JALANDHAR

In the result, the ITA No

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

house property, without considering the facts of the case and without observing the principles of natural justice. s. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Hon’ble CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld. Assessing Officer in making an addition of Rs. 17,88,806/-, without considering

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR vs. SHRI RAJAN BATRA, JALANDHAR

In the result, the ITA No

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

house property, without considering the facts of the case and without observing the principles of natural justice. s. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Hon’ble CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld. Assessing Officer in making an addition of Rs. 17,88,806/-, without considering

SHRI RAJAN BATRA ,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, JALANDHAR

In the result, the ITA No

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

house property, without considering the facts of the case and without observing the principles of natural justice. s. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Hon’ble CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld. Assessing Officer in making an addition of Rs. 17,88,806/-, without considering

SHRI RAJAN BATRA,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, JALANDHAR

In the result, the ITA No

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

house property, without considering the facts of the case and without observing the principles of natural justice. s. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Hon’ble CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld. Assessing Officer in making an addition of Rs. 17,88,806/-, without considering

SHR RAJESH TIWARI,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, JALANDHAR

In the result, the ITA No

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

house property, without considering the facts of the case and without observing the principles of natural justice. s. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Hon’ble CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld. Assessing Officer in making an addition of Rs. 17,88,806/-, without considering

SHRI RAJAN BATRA,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, JALANDHAR

In the result, the ITA No

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

house property, without considering the facts of the case and without observing the principles of natural justice. s. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Hon’ble CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld. Assessing Officer in making an addition of Rs. 17,88,806/-, without considering