SHRI DHARMINDER SINGH ,AMRITSAR vs. INCOME TAX OFICER, WARD-4 (1), AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

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

reassessment proceedings and the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer is held to be valid thereof. Accordingly, the legal issues raised in ground nos. 1 to 7 are rejected. 7. Next issue pertains to the source of disputed unexplained cash deposit income in the assessee’s bank account being claimed as exempted

SMT. SATVIR KAUR W/O SH. SHINDER SINGH,FEROZEPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

exempt income, the assessee opted for not filing of Income Tax Return for the year under consideration i.e. A.Y. 2011-12. Further, the bank account maintained by the assessee in Oriental Bank of Commerce is in the joint name of assessee as well as her husband. It is worthwhile to mention here that all the receipts of the assessee

SHRI SHAM SUNDER AGGARWAL,KAPURTHALA vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1, JALANDHAR

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

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

reassessment, alongwith other supporting evidence, vide reply dt.21.12.2018 (copy appended at pg.109-110). xii) As to the truth of cancelled TINs of 18 parties, it is factually incorrect. At least in respect of the parties whose VAT 23 is being filed herein above, it is false per se. Then the timing of this allegation is no where stated, which is important

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

exempt u/s 10(38) is fully justified. In view thereof, addition of Rs. 2,11,81,016/- made by the AO is upheld Accordingly, these grounds of appeal are dismissed.” 9. Now the assessee is in appeal before the tribunal and in course of hearing the Ld. AR of the assessee has argued on the legal aspect of the matter

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

exempt u/s 10(38) is fully justified. In view thereof, addition of Rs. 2,11,81,016/- made by the AO is upheld Accordingly, these grounds of appeal are dismissed.” 9. Now the assessee is in appeal before the tribunal and in course of hearing the Ld. AR of the assessee has argued on the legal aspect of the matter

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -2 (1), AMRITSAR vs. MS. SAVITA BANSAL, THROUGH LEGAL HEIR SH. PARVEEN KUMAR BANSAL, AMRITSAR

In the result, the revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Udayan Das Gupta, Jm 1. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 240/Asr/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Income Tax Officer Smt. Savita Bansal Ward-2(1) बनाम/ (Through L/H Shri Parveen Kumar Bansal) Amritsar 143001 H.No. 272, Green Avenue Vs. Amritsar-143001. "थायीलेखासं./Pan. Abmpb-3594-K (Assessee) / Acnpk-4131-D (Lh) (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 2. Cross Objection No. 1/Amritsar/2024 (In Ita No. 240/Asr/2023) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Smt. Savita Bansal Income Tax Officer बनाम/ (Through L/H Shri Parveen Kumar Bansal) Ward-2(1) H.No. 272, Green Avenue Amritsar 143001 Vs. Amritsar-143001. "थायीलेखासं./Pan. Abmpb-3594-K (Assessee) / Acnpk-4131-D (Lh) (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/Appellant By : Dr Rakesh Gupta (Advocate) –Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri B. Srinivas Kumar (Cit) – Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10-07-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21-08-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () Aforesaid Appeal By Revenue For Assessment Year (Ay) 2016- 1. 17 Arises Out Of An Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax

exempt u/s 10(38) was considered to be bogus and accordingly, added to the returned income of the deceased assessee. 3.2 The Ld. CIT(A), after considering assessee’s submissions as well as remand report and assessee’s rejoinder thereto, observed that no documentary evidence was brought in by Ld. AO to support the allegations. The prices of the impugned

SHRI ARNESH KUMAR SHAKAR EX. MLA,HOSHIARPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD, DASUYA

In the result, appeal of the assessee ITA No

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

exemption u/s 54F on account of deposit in the Capital Gains Scheme but directed that since the assessee had invested the said capital gains beyond the period of two years from the I.T.A. No. 6/Asr/2021 6 Assessment Year: 2010-11 date of transfer of original asset, the entire capital gain would be taxable in the financial year 2009-10 relevant

M/S BLUE CITY TOWNSHIP & COLONIZERS,AMRITSAR. vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,, AMRITSAR.

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

reassessment are held to be devoid of any merits and substance and therefore, same are as such rejected. 12. In ground no. 3 & 4, the assessee has challenged approval granted by the CIT u/s 151 for issuing notice u/s 147 as bad in law. This issue of approval granted u/s 151 of the Income

GURPAL SINGH SIDHU,NEAR GOVT SCHOOL vs. ITO WARD 1(2), BATHINDA, BATHINDA

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

Bench: Udayan Das Gupta & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2017-18]

exempt agriculture income is not sufficient to discharge the onus cast on him. 5.4.3 As regards the decision relied upon wherein SLP was dismissed against High Court ruling that where Assessing Officer issued a reopening notice on ground that assessee had made transactions of huge amount in national/multi commodity exchange but he had not filed his return of income

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, FARIDKOT, BSNL BUILDING vs. M/S VOHRA SOLVEX PVT. LTD, SADIQ ROAD

In the result, C.O. filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Krinwant Sahay

reassessment proceeding due to the absence of any purchase agreements and details of transportation in respect of the said purchases and as such the same has remained unexplained and addition has been made of the entire amount of purchase totaling Rs.6,43,54,912/-, u/s 69C of the Act to the total income of the assessee as bogus purchase

M/S PUNJAB INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES,,JALANDHAR vs. THE DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR

In the result, the ITA No

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

exemption u/s 11. 8. In view of the above, the appeal filed by assessee is allowed.” 3.2 As per argument of the counsel, the assessment was completed by treating the assessee-trust as unregistered trust and disallowance of claim was made u/s 11 I.T.A. Nos.303 to 306/Asr/2017 I.T.A. No.581/Asr/2015&S.A .Nos. 08 to 11/Asr/2022 6 of the Act. In argument

M/S.PUNJAB INSTITURE OF MEDICAL SCIENCE,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , JALANDHAR

In the result, the ITA No

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

exemption u/s 11. 8. In view of the above, the appeal filed by assessee is allowed.” 3.2 As per argument of the counsel, the assessment was completed by treating the assessee-trust as unregistered trust and disallowance of claim was made u/s 11 I.T.A. Nos.303 to 306/Asr/2017 I.T.A. No.581/Asr/2015&S.A .Nos. 08 to 11/Asr/2022 6 of the Act. In argument

M/S.PUNJAB INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCE,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , JALANDHAR

In the result, the ITA No

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

exemption u/s 11. 8. In view of the above, the appeal filed by assessee is allowed.” 3.2 As per argument of the counsel, the assessment was completed by treating the assessee-trust as unregistered trust and disallowance of claim was made u/s 11 I.T.A. Nos.303 to 306/Asr/2017 I.T.A. No.581/Asr/2015&S.A .Nos. 08 to 11/Asr/2022 6 of the Act. In argument

M/S.PUNJAB INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCE,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , JALANDHAR

In the result, the ITA No

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

exemption u/s 11. 8. In view of the above, the appeal filed by assessee is allowed.” 3.2 As per argument of the counsel, the assessment was completed by treating the assessee-trust as unregistered trust and disallowance of claim was made u/s 11 I.T.A. Nos.303 to 306/Asr/2017 I.T.A. No.581/Asr/2015&S.A .Nos. 08 to 11/Asr/2022 6 of the Act. In argument

M/S. PUNJAB INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES ,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , JALANDHAR

In the result, the ITA No

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

exemption u/s 11. 8. In view of the above, the appeal filed by assessee is allowed.” 3.2 As per argument of the counsel, the assessment was completed by treating the assessee-trust as unregistered trust and disallowance of claim was made u/s 11 I.T.A. Nos.303 to 306/Asr/2017 I.T.A. No.581/Asr/2015&S.A .Nos. 08 to 11/Asr/2022 6 of the Act. In argument

M/S PARADIES MULTIPLEXS CUM VILLAS PVT LTD ,ABHOAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(3) , ABOHAR

In the result, the appeals of assessee bearing ITA No

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

reassessment proceedings: I.T.A. No.628/Asr/2018 10 I.T.A. No.138/Asr/2019 “As per information available with this office that the above noted assessee has credited in the bank account no. 65030336634 with SBOP, Abohar amounting to Rs.7,37,60,500/- and also purchased properties for a consideration of Rs. 1,72,88,000/-. The above noted assessee has filed its income tax return

M/S PARADISE MULTIPLEX CUM VILLAS. PVT. LTD,ABOHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-II(3), ABOHAR

In the result, the appeals of assessee bearing ITA No

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

reassessment proceedings: I.T.A. No.628/Asr/2018 10 I.T.A. No.138/Asr/2019 “As per information available with this office that the above noted assessee has credited in the bank account no. 65030336634 with SBOP, Abohar amounting to Rs.7,37,60,500/- and also purchased properties for a consideration of Rs. 1,72,88,000/-. The above noted assessee has filed its income tax return

PIRTPAL SINGH BRAR,MUKTSAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2), MUKTSAR, MUKTSAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Khettra Mohan Roy

exemption from operation of the provisions of clause (b) of sub-section (4) of section 249 of the Act.” 8. Now, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal on the grounds contained in the memorandum of appeal. Referring to the paper book filed along with an application for admission of additional evidence under Rule 29 of ITAT Rules