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

credited in the bank account on I.T.A. No.22/Asr/2023 3 Assessment Year: 2014-15 account of sale of property made on behalf of the father through registered POA dated 17.02.2012. 4. That the CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 19547959/- on account of cash deposited ignoring the fact that the assessee's father was the owner

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

credits during demonetization period. The addition of amount of Rs. 1124000/- deposited during demonetization period has been made ignoring the fact that same pattern of deposits has been followed in earlier period. The summary of cash deposits made in earlier period is as under: - Table D Detail of month wise cash deposit Month Deposit Page No April

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

house property, profits and gains of business or profession, or capital gains, nor is it income from ’other sources' because the provisions of sections 69, 69A, 69B and 69C treat unexplained investments, unexplained money, bullion, etc., and unexplained expenditure as deemed income where the nature and source of investment, acquisition or expenditure, as the case may be, have not been

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

house 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

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

house 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

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

house 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

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

house Property (Rs.1,38,375+3,75,194) and income from other sources (Rs.3,80,981) which is evident from the computation of income forming part of paper book –II at Pg. 296-298. Addition 34,85,100 Rs. Rs.5,18,150 29,66,950/ 5,18,150/- The said cash deposit of has been Rs.5

SH. BARAT PAL SOOD,,PHAGWARA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,, PHAGWARA

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

house property Income at Rs.1,17,600/- and on account of undeclared bank interest Income at Rs.34,242/-, respectively. Accordingly, the AO 3 completed the assessment u/s.143(3) of the Act dated 23.12.2011 assessing total income at Rs.22,55,590/-. 4. Feeling aggrieved from the assessment order, the assessee appealed before the CIT(A) and the CIT(A) partly allowed

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

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

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

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

properties Private Ltd. Vs. CIT 109 ITR 229 are also relevant. “Where assessment order is in accordance with law, it cannot be termed to be erroneous, C.I.T Vs. Ashoka Traders SLP Civil no. 2374-2375 of 1995 dismissed by the Supreme Court 212 ITR (ST) 369.” 23. It was submitted that the observations of Principal Commissioner of Income

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

cash. 4. The Learned CIT A has erred in law and facts and circumstances of the case in stating ^ that order passed against the appellant by the Assessing officer is not in pursuance of order passed by CIT u/s 263 and further that the vires of order of revision passed u/s 263 cannot be challenged in appeal against assessment order

SHRI HARBANS SINGH MANN,MANSA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1 (4), MANSA

In the result, the ground no

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No.129/Asr/2022 Assessment Year: 2010-11

property with the family members. The assessee received the amount through bank draft and through cash. Both the amount was deposited in bank account. The assessee relied on the copy of the agreement. But the purchaser denied the said agreement as it is I.T.A. No.129/Asr/2022 4 Assessment Year: 2010-11 own document of assessee. So, the ld. AO has treated

THE ASSISATANT COMMISSIOENR OF INCOME-TAX,, HOSHIARPUR vs. SH. MANINDER SINGH CHEEMA, HOSHIARPUR

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 719/Asr/2013 Assessment Year: 2007-08

unexplained credit? Further, this would be so irrespective of whether they had paid the assessee money toward booking of plots, as claimed, or otherwise. 5 Maninder Singh Cheema v. Asstt. CIT That is, in either case, section 68 cannot be invoked. The explanation of the same as representing earnest money, it needs to be appreciated, is an explanation toward

SHRIMATI JATINDER KAUR ( ALIAS AMRITA),JALANDHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JALANDHAR

In the result all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

cash credit were satisfied by the assessee the addition should have been deleted rather than upholding the same u/s 56(1)(vii) of the Act. 4 That even otherwise on facts too, the CIT(A) has erred in holding that the Gift to the daughter by his father during the year which came from the Bank A/c of the Company

SHRIMATI JATINDER KAUR(ALIAS AMRITA),JALANDHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JALANDHAR

In the result all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

cash credit were satisfied by the assessee the addition should have been deleted rather than upholding the same u/s 56(1)(vii) of the Act. 4 That even otherwise on facts too, the CIT(A) has erred in holding that the Gift to the daughter by his father during the year which came from the Bank A/c of the Company

SHRIMATI JATINDER KAUR (ALIAS AMRITA),JALANDHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JALANDHAR

In the result all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

cash credit were satisfied by the assessee the addition should have been deleted rather than upholding the same u/s 56(1)(vii) of the Act. 4 That even otherwise on facts too, the CIT(A) has erred in holding that the Gift to the daughter by his father during the year which came from the Bank A/c of the Company