SMT. SATYAWATI MARWAHA THROUGH LEGAL HEIR SH. CHANDER SHEIKHAR MARWAHA,JALANDHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal for Asstt

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

house property at Rs.75,600/-, short term capital loss at (Rs.30,618/-), income from bank interest at Rs.17,667/- and LTCG (long term capital gains) amounting to Rs.2,02, 30,196/- which has been claimed as exempt u/s 10(38) of the Act) . After a search operation u/s 132 of the Act 1961 carried out on 29th

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

90,000/- on account of cash credits in bank account, without considering the facts of the case and without observing the principles of natural justice. 6. 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 disallowed the deduction claimed

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

90,000/- on account of cash credits in bank account, without considering the facts of the case and without observing the principles of natural justice. 6. 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 disallowed the deduction claimed

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

90,000/- on account of cash credits in bank account, without considering the facts of the case and without observing the principles of natural justice. 6. 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 disallowed the deduction claimed

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

90,000/- on account of cash credits in bank account, without considering the facts of the case and without observing the principles of natural justice. 6. 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 disallowed the deduction claimed

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

90,000/- on account of cash credits in bank account, without considering the facts of the case and without observing the principles of natural justice. 6. 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 disallowed the deduction claimed

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

90,000/- on account of cash credits in bank account, without considering the facts of the case and without observing the principles of natural justice. 6. 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 disallowed the deduction claimed

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

In the result, the ITA No

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

90,000/- on account of cash credits in bank account, without considering the facts of the case and without observing the principles of natural justice. 6. 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 disallowed the deduction claimed

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

90,000/- on account of cash credits in bank account, without considering the facts of the case and without observing the principles of natural justice. 6. 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 disallowed the deduction claimed

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

90,000/- on account of cash credits in bank account, without considering the facts of the case and without observing the principles of natural justice. 6. 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 disallowed the deduction claimed

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

90,000/- on account of cash credits in bank account, without considering the facts of the case and without observing the principles of natural justice. 6. 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 disallowed the deduction claimed

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

90,000/- on account of cash credits in bank account, without considering the facts of the case and without observing the principles of natural justice. 6. 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 disallowed the deduction claimed

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

90,000/- on account of cash credits in bank account, without considering the facts of the case and without observing the principles of natural justice. 6. 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 disallowed the deduction claimed

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

90,960/- . The profits earned pre demonetization period and post demonetization period is tabulated as under:- I.T.A. No.166/Asr/2022 12 Assessment Year: 2017-18 TABLE F Particulars Amount Profit @8% Sales Up to 08.11.2016 6510000 520800 Sale from 09.11.2016 to 31.03.2017 1390960 111277 Total 7900960 632077 7.7That the appellant is an individual and is engaged in running the business

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

90,000/- was deposited in Punjab & Sind Bank and Rs.1,23,68,499/- cash was deposited in HDFC Bank. Considering the disclosed business income Rs.3,10,540/-, the addition was confirmed amount to Rs.1,95,47,959/- and the assessment was completed u/s 144 of the Act. The assessee prayed that the entire amount of deposit was not properly reconciled

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,JALANDHAR vs. M/S. SADHU SINGH HAMDARD TRUST, JALANDHAR

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

house in Green Park, New Delhi. No material has been brought before us to rebut the factual findings of the Id. CIT(A). On consideration of the materials on the file, the past record of the society, the year to year services rendered by Mrs. Sudha Tewari from its inception, we are satisfied that the salary, rent, etc., paid

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,JALANDHAR vs. M/S. SADHU SINGH HAMDARD TRUST, JALANDHAR

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

house in Green Park, New Delhi. No material has been brought before us to rebut the factual findings of the Id. CIT(A). On consideration of the materials on the file, the past record of the society, the year to year services rendered by Mrs. Sudha Tewari from its inception, we are satisfied that the salary, rent, etc., paid

M/S SADHU SINGH HAMDARD TRUST,JALANDHAR vs. THE ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR

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

house in Green Park, New Delhi. No material has been brought before us to rebut the factual findings of the Id. CIT(A). On consideration of the materials on the file, the past record of the society, the year to year services rendered by Mrs. Sudha Tewari from its inception, we are satisfied that the salary, rent, etc., paid

M/S. SADHU SINGH HAMDARD TRUST,JALANDHAR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR

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

house in Green Park, New Delhi. No material has been brought before us to rebut the factual findings of the Id. CIT(A). On consideration of the materials on the file, the past record of the society, the year to year services rendered by Mrs. Sudha Tewari from its inception, we are satisfied that the salary, rent, etc., paid