INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1),FEROZEPUR, FEROZEPUR vs. MS.JATIN AGRO, FORT ROAD

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Physical Hearing) I.T.A. No. 103 & 104/Asr/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2017-18 Ito, Ward-3(1), Vs. M/S Jatin Agro Fort Road, Ferozepur. 152-P, Ferozepur. [Pan:-Aarpm5393F] (Appellant) (Respondent) Sh. Ashray Sarna, Ca Appellant By Respondent By Sh. Sunil Gautam, Cit. Dr

loss, there arised no question of setting it off against current year income. 3. During the previous year under consideration, it had earned Rs.6, 18, 29,857/-as rental income le income from a source other than from a specified business as per section 35AD of the Act. But, the treatment of rental income received from godown given on rent

INCOME TAX OFFICER, FEROZEPUR vs. MS.JATIN AGRO, FORT ROAD

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Physical Hearing) I.T.A. No. 103 & 104/Asr/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2017-18 Ito, Ward-3(1), Vs. M/S Jatin Agro Fort Road, Ferozepur. 152-P, Ferozepur. [Pan:-Aarpm5393F] (Appellant) (Respondent) Sh. Ashray Sarna, Ca Appellant By Respondent By Sh. Sunil Gautam, Cit. Dr

loss, there arised no question of setting it off against current year income. 3. During the previous year under consideration, it had earned Rs.6, 18, 29,857/-as rental income le income from a source other than from a specified business as per section 35AD of the Act. But, the treatment of rental income received from godown given on rent

DIVAY MOHINDRU,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JALANDHAR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Hybrid Hearing) I.T.A. No. 129/Asr/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Divay Mohindru, Prop. M/S Vs. Ito, Ward 3(1), Mahavir Abhushans, Deep Jalandhar. Market Juakhana Bazar Kalan, Jalandhar. [Pan:-Advpm1552D] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Asharay Sarna, Ca. Sh. Charan Dass, Sr. Dr Respondent By Date Of Hearing 14.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 08.01.2026

loss account of balance, debtors and creditors list and complete set of books of account including cash book. 6.1 The ld. AR submitted that the AO has erred in law in rejecting the books and taking recourse of section 145(3) of the Act and he has raised objections regarding the part rejection of books as stated

PANKAJ JINDAL CONTRACTOR,MANSA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-I, BATHINDA, BATHINDA

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Physical Hearing) I.T.A. No. 695/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S Pankaj Jindal Contractor, Vs. Dcit-Circle-1, Near Vidya Bharti School, Bathinda. Mansa. [Pan:-Aajfp8008L] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Sudhir Sehgal, Adv. Respondent By Sh. Charan Dass, Sr. Dr

losses has made an addition of Rs.3.50 lakhs , which points to towards the fact that the AO has applied his mind in course of original proceedings and was fully satisfied that there has not been any cash payment to any single payee above the stipulated limit so as to attract the provisions of section 40A(3). I.T.A. No. 695/Asr/2024

M/S. RAJ DEV ,KOTKAPURA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, FARIDKOT

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is allowed for statistical

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

losses as a result of which, the total income of the assessee was below than the maximum exemption limit. Hence, for the relevant year, the assessee did not file its return of income. However, during the course of the assessment proceedings, the assessee duly submitted a copy of the draft computation of income for AY 2017-18(APB, page

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]

loss and, therefore, he had not filed return of income, since Assessing Officer had not looked into objections raised by assessee and proceeded ahead, impugned reassessment notice was unjustified The facts of this case were entirely different than that of present case of the appellant. In the present case, the appellant could not explain source and nature of cash deposits

M/S JAMMU COOPERATIVE WHOLE SALE LIMITED,JAMMU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2 (1), JAMMU

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No. 150/Asr/2020 Assessment Year: 2005-06 M/S Jammu Cooperative Whole Sale The Ito Limited (Super Bazar) Old Hospital Ward-2(1) Road, City Chowk, Jammu- Jammu 180001(J&K)-180001

reassessment" cannot be reduced beyond the income originally assessed. 5.3 In view of that matter, we find no infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on the issue of confirming the finding of the AO in not accepting the loss return claim on account of carry forward of losses by the assessee and hence, no interference is called

NEERAJ KUMAR SETHI,DELHI vs. ITO, NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE (NFAC)

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

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

reassessment has been made on borrowed satisfaction of investigation wing, secondly proceedings initiated on the basis of reasons to suspect and thirdly without allowing any opportunity of cross examination of Mr Ashok Kumar Gupta. 13. On the merits of the case the Ld. AR submitted that complete set of books of accounts produced supported by documentary evidences, of purchase, sales

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2), JALANDHAR, , CIVIL LINES vs. SH. BARJESH SINGHAL, MODERN COLONY

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

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

loss account for the assessment year 2016-17 & 2015-16. Comparison of the balance sheet for the assessment year 2016-17 & 2015-16 reveals that there is increase in sundry creditors as against income. The assessee was asked to explain the reasons. A notice u/s 142(1) was issued. In response to this the assessee has e-furnished reply stating

IMRAN MAJEED,SRINAGAR vs. ITO WARD 1, SRINAGAR, SRINAGAR

In the result, the appeal for the Asstt

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

reassessment proceedings and further in absence of any response from the assessee to various subsequent notices issued by the department , the assessment was completed on a total income of Rs. 35.23 lakhs on the basis of information gathered u/s 133(6) of the Act, @ 80% of total commission Rs.44.04 lakhs as reflected in form 26AS alleged to have been earned

IMRAN MAJEED,SRINAGAR vs. ITO, WARD 1, SRINAGAR, SRINAGAR

In the result, the appeal for the Asstt

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

reassessment proceedings and further in absence of any response from the assessee to various subsequent notices issued by the department , the assessment was completed on a total income of Rs. 35.23 lakhs on the basis of information gathered u/s 133(6) of the Act, @ 80% of total commission Rs.44.04 lakhs as reflected in form 26AS alleged to have been earned

M/S CITI PLAZA,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , WARD 3(1), JALANDHAR

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

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

set aside by the Hon'ble ITAT, the ground has been taken by the appellant that no direction had been given by the CIT(A) in appellate order that for taxing the capital gains if any, in AY 2006-07. Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically held in a number of cases that order has to be read

SAINIK CO OPERATIVE HOUSE BUILDING SOCIETY LIMITED,JAMMU AND KASHMIR vs. ITO WARD 1(1), JAMMU, JAMMU

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed on the legal issue as indicated above

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Hybrid Hearing) I.T.A. No. 698/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-14

Loss account, etc. 6. That the CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition made by the AO u/s 69A without appreciating that the provisions of section 69A can only be invoked in the case of unexplained investment not recorded in the books of account and not on account of cash deposited in bank. I.T.A. No. 698/Asr/2024 3 Assessment Year

POONAM MARWAHA,AMRITSAR vs. ACIT DCIT CEN CIR, AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee is allowed

loss of revenue, or where two views\nare possible and AO has taken one view with which the CIT does not agree, it cannot\nbe treated as an erroneous order prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue, unless the\nview taken by the AO is totally unsustainable in law. In this regard reliance is being\nplaced upon the following case

SHRIMATI. LATA NARANG,JALANDHAR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1, JALANDHAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

loss of revenue as a consequence of the order of the Assessing Officer cannot be treated as prejudicial to the interest of revenue. It was further held that whereto views are possible and the Income Tax Officer has taken one 8 Lata Narang v. Pr. CIT view with which the Commissioner does not agree, the order passed by the Assessing

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

set off of debit entries in the diary. 13. That the appellant craves to add, amend or alter any ground of appeal before or at the time of hearing of appeal, with the permission of the Hon’ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.” 3. Since, the bunch of above appeals involve identical issues on similar facts and these are being decided

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

set off of debit entries in the diary. 13. That the appellant craves to add, amend or alter any ground of appeal before or at the time of hearing of appeal, with the permission of the Hon’ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.” 3. Since, the bunch of above appeals involve identical issues on similar facts and these are being decided

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

set off of debit entries in the diary. 13. That the appellant craves to add, amend or alter any ground of appeal before or at the time of hearing of appeal, with the permission of the Hon’ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.” 3. Since, the bunch of above appeals involve identical issues on similar facts and these are being decided

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

set off of debit entries in the diary. 13. That the appellant craves to add, amend or alter any ground of appeal before or at the time of hearing of appeal, with the permission of the Hon’ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.” 3. Since, the bunch of above appeals involve identical issues on similar facts and these are being decided