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

147 as envisaged under the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. 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. AO in framing the impugned assessment order u/s 144r.w.s 147of the Income tax Act and without complying with the mandatory conditions u/s

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

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

147 on 23.05.2023 is bad in law since, the jurisdictional notice issued u/s 148 on 25.07.2022 is bad in law. 5. That the CIT(A) has erred in not taking cognizance of the details of receipts and expenditure furnished in the return of income filed in response to notice issued u/s 148 whereby it was made clear that receipts

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

exemption u/s 10(36) of the Act, deduction u/s 57 of the Act and unsecured loans and the assessees furnished all the relevant documents which were examined by the AO who has taken a possible view. Therefore, it is our considered view that there was a due application of mind on the part of the AO in all the four

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

TSERING PHUNCHOK,LEH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, SRINAGAR, SRINAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed being infructuous

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

exempted u/s 10(26) of the Act 61. 4. On the basis of flagged information from DIT (systems) CBDT, in accordance with risk management strategy, that the assessee has indulged in various financial transactions, and in absence of any return on record, reassessment proceedings were initiated vide notice u/s 148 dated 4th April, 2022, (as per procedure). 5. In absence

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

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

SHRI ARUN NARULA ,FEROZEPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, AMRITSAR

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

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

exempt head. Therefore, the argument about this receipt does not find support from the Income Tax Return filed by the assessee. Hence, it is to be treated as taxable amount in the hands of the assessee. The balance Rs. 20,00,000/- was received in four entries of Rs. 5,00,000/- each, however, the nature of receipts have

SHRI ARUN NARULA,FROZEPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, AMRITSAR

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

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

exempt head. Therefore, the argument about this receipt does not find support from the Income Tax Return filed by the assessee. Hence, it is to be treated as taxable amount in the hands of the assessee. The balance Rs. 20,00,000/- was received in four entries of Rs. 5,00,000/- each, however, the nature of receipts have

SHRI ARUN NARULA,FEROZEPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OFD INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, AMRITSAR

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

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

exempt head. Therefore, the argument about this receipt does not find support from the Income Tax Return filed by the assessee. Hence, it is to be treated as taxable amount in the hands of the assessee. The balance Rs. 20,00,000/- was received in four entries of Rs. 5,00,000/- each, however, the nature of receipts have

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

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

147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act, 1961 dated 04.03.2024. 2 I.T.A. No. 38/Asr/2025 Assessment Year: 2019-20 2. The assessee has taken four grounds of appeal in Form No. 36 and all grounds relates to a single issue that the ld. CIT(A) being the first appellate authority has dismissed the appeal refusing to admit the appeal for hearing

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

147 as also the additions made in order dt.27.12.2018, having close bearing on purchases doubted by PCIT, was pending, the jurisdiction u/s.263 could not be invoked in law. I.T.A. No.17/Asr/2021 3 Assessment Year: 2011-12 4. That when all the relevant details and documents were filed in reassessment, and examined by the ld. lTO qua the issues as per 'reasons

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

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]

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 before the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the Assessing Officer correctly proceeded with re-assessment proceedings and completed the assessment accordingly. 5.5. The appellant argued that

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

u/s 131 of the IT Act 1961, in which they have stated that amount is still outstanding is a corroborative evidence and they have categorically denied making payments. The AO has not relied on their statements alone but has given 4 Raj Dev v. ITO findings like abnormal increase in cash received in the month of October