LATE. SH. GURMAIL. SINGH. S/O. SH. LAL SINGH,SRI MUKATSAR vs. DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -II, BATHINDA

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

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

24. Considering the factual matrix and the judicial pronouncements, we hold that the Ld. CIT (A)’s order is perverse to the facts on record as he has confirmed the order of Ld. AO in a routine manner without appreciating merits of the case. We, therefore, quash the impugned order in respect of the assessment year

SH. ARASHPREET SINGH S/O LATE SH. GURMAIL SINGH,SHRI MUKATSAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-II, BATHINDA

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

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

24. Considering the factual matrix and the judicial pronouncements, we hold that the Ld. CIT (A)’s order is perverse to the facts on record as he has confirmed the order of Ld. AO in a routine manner without appreciating merits of the case. We, therefore, quash the impugned order in respect of the assessment year

LATE. SH. GUMAIL SINGH . S/O. SH. LAL SINGH,MUKTSAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -II, BATHINDA

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

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

24. Considering the factual matrix and the judicial pronouncements, we hold that the Ld. CIT (A)’s order is perverse to the facts on record as he has confirmed the order of Ld. AO in a routine manner without appreciating merits of the case. We, therefore, quash the impugned order in respect of the assessment year

SH. ARASHPREET SINGH S/O. LATE SH. GURMAIL SINGH,MUKTSAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CERCLE- II, BATHINDA

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

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

24. Considering the factual matrix and the judicial pronouncements, we hold that the Ld. CIT (A)’s order is perverse to the facts on record as he has confirmed the order of Ld. AO in a routine manner without appreciating merits of the case. We, therefore, quash the impugned order in respect of the assessment year

LATE. SH. GURMAIL SINGH S/O. SH. LAL SINGH,SRI MUKATSAR vs. DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -II, BATHINDA

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

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

24. Considering the factual matrix and the judicial pronouncements, we hold that the Ld. CIT (A)’s order is perverse to the facts on record as he has confirmed the order of Ld. AO in a routine manner without appreciating merits of the case. We, therefore, quash the impugned order in respect of the assessment year

LATE. SH. GURMAIL SINGH.S/O. LATE SH. LAL SINGH,SRI MUKTSAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -II, BATHINDA

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

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

24. Considering the factual matrix and the judicial pronouncements, we hold that the Ld. CIT (A)’s order is perverse to the facts on record as he has confirmed the order of Ld. AO in a routine manner without appreciating merits of the case. We, therefore, quash the impugned order in respect of the assessment year

SH. ARASHPREET SINGH. S/O.LATE.SH. GURMAIL SINGH,MUKTSAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX .CIRCLE-II, BATHINDA

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

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

24. Considering the factual matrix and the judicial pronouncements, we hold that the Ld. CIT (A)’s order is perverse to the facts on record as he has confirmed the order of Ld. AO in a routine manner without appreciating merits of the case. We, therefore, quash the impugned order in respect of the assessment year

SH. ARSPREET SINGH . S/O. LATE. SH. GURMAIL SINGH ,MUKTSAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE .II, BATHINDA

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

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

24. Considering the factual matrix and the judicial pronouncements, we hold that the Ld. CIT (A)’s order is perverse to the facts on record as he has confirmed the order of Ld. AO in a routine manner without appreciating merits of the case. We, therefore, quash the impugned order in respect of the assessment year

LATE. SH. GURMAIL. SINGH S/O. SH. LAL SINGH,SHRI MUKAT SAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF 9INCOME TAX. CIRCLE -II, BATHINDA

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

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

24. Considering the factual matrix and the judicial pronouncements, we hold that the Ld. CIT (A)’s order is perverse to the facts on record as he has confirmed the order of Ld. AO in a routine manner without appreciating merits of the case. We, therefore, quash the impugned order in respect of the assessment year

SHRI KRISHAN KUMAR MITTAL,FEROZEPUR CANTT vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1, JALANDHAR

In the result,all the three appeals bearing ITANo

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Borad

24 of the paper book. I.T.A Nos. 433 to 435/ASR/2019 3 5. For the year of search i.e., AY 2016-17, the assessee filed return of income on 1.10.2016 declaring income of Rs.43,17,590/- which included the surrendered income of Rs. 40 lacs stated in the statement given by Sameer Mittal. Return income was accepted however penalty proceedings u/s

SHRI MATI SANJANA MITTAL ,FEROZEPUR CANTT vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1, JALANDHAR

In the result,all the three appeals bearing ITANo

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Borad

24 of the paper book. I.T.A Nos. 433 to 435/ASR/2019 3 5. For the year of search i.e., AY 2016-17, the assessee filed return of income on 1.10.2016 declaring income of Rs.43,17,590/- which included the surrendered income of Rs. 40 lacs stated in the statement given by Sameer Mittal. Return income was accepted however penalty proceedings u/s

SHRI SUSHIL MITTAL,FEROZEPUR CANTT vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1, JALANDHAR

In the result,all the three appeals bearing ITANo

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Borad

24 of the paper book. I.T.A Nos. 433 to 435/ASR/2019 3 5. For the year of search i.e., AY 2016-17, the assessee filed return of income on 1.10.2016 declaring income of Rs.43,17,590/- which included the surrendered income of Rs. 40 lacs stated in the statement given by Sameer Mittal. Return income was accepted however penalty proceedings u/s

SH. PUNEET SEHDEV PROP,JAMMU vs. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, JAMMU

Bench: Shri L. P. Sahu & Shri Ravish Sood

Penalty order u/s 271(1)(c), (Revenue) dated 11/03/2014. As the issues involved in the abovementioned appeals are inextricably interlinked or in fact interwoven, therefore, the same are being taken up and disposed off together by way of a common order. We shall first advert to the appeal of the assessee for A.Y 2008-09, wherein the impugned order

PUNEET SAHDEV,JAMMU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAMMU

Bench: Shri L. P. Sahu & Shri Ravish Sood

Penalty order u/s 271(1)(c), (Revenue) dated 11/03/2014. As the issues involved in the abovementioned appeals are inextricably interlinked or in fact interwoven, therefore, the same are being taken up and disposed off together by way of a common order. We shall first advert to the appeal of the assessee for A.Y 2008-09, wherein the impugned order

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAMMU vs. SH. PUNEET SEHDEV, PROP., JAMMU

Bench: Shri L. P. Sahu & Shri Ravish Sood

Penalty order u/s 271(1)(c), (Revenue) dated 11/03/2014. As the issues involved in the abovementioned appeals are inextricably interlinked or in fact interwoven, therefore, the same are being taken up and disposed off together by way of a common order. We shall first advert to the appeal of the assessee for A.Y 2008-09, wherein the impugned order

SH. PUNEET SEHDEV PROP;,JAMMU vs. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER,, JAMMU

Bench: Shri L. P. Sahu & Shri Ravish Sood

Penalty order u/s 271(1)(c), (Revenue) dated 11/03/2014. As the issues involved in the abovementioned appeals are inextricably interlinked or in fact interwoven, therefore, the same are being taken up and disposed off together by way of a common order. We shall first advert to the appeal of the assessee for A.Y 2008-09, wherein the impugned order

SHRI H.K. GANDOTRA,GURGAON vs. THE INOCME-TAX OFFICER, JAMMU

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A. No. 594/Asr/2014 Assessment Year: 1997-98

271(1)(c) were accordingly proceeded with, and after considering the assessee’s explanation/s, not found tenable, penalty levied for concealment of particulars of income, on the balance income brought to tax in assessment (i.e., Rs. 7,24,672), at the minimum rate of 100% of the tax thereon, i.e., Rs.2,62,899. The assessee being unsuccessful in appeal

SH.SURESH KUMAR SHARMA.S/O SH. RAKHA RAM,KOTKAPURA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3 (3), FAIDKOT

In the result, the appeal of the appellant is dismissed

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

24(b) of the Act for paying interest on the House Building Advance from SBI amounting to Rs. 80000/-. 13. That the assessee has the proof of depositing the amount in LIP and repayments of instalments of house building advance to SBOI. So,eligible for deduction u/s 80C. So, the addition of Rs. 100000/- is liable to be deleted

SH. SURESH KUMAR SHARMA S/O. SH. RAKHA RAM,KOTKAPURA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(3), FARIDKOT

In the result, the appeal of the appellant is dismissed

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

24(b) of the Act for paying interest on the House Building Advance from SBI amounting to Rs. 80000/-. 13. That the assessee has the proof of depositing the amount in LIP and repayments of instalments of house building advance to SBOI. So,eligible for deduction u/s 80C. So, the addition of Rs. 100000/- is liable to be deleted