THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -3,, SRINAGAR vs. M/S JYOTI LIMITED , SRINAGAR

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

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

u/s 143(3). However, a notice under section 148 of the Act was issued on 21.03.2013 for the reason escapement of income. The assessee, vide letter dated 25.03.2013, in response to the said notice, the assessee filed a revised return and the rent received was offered to tax as ‘income from house property’, as per I.T.A. No.612/Asr/2017 6 Assessment Year

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

reassessment u/s 147 on the ground of AIR Information not being reflected in the return of Income, ignoring the clear position of the law that section 139(9) can only be used to rectify defects, if any in the return of income. 7. The Learned CIT(A) has erred in law and facts and circumstances of the case

SHRI BRIJINDERPAL SINGH BHULLAR,MOHALI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- 1 (3), BATHINDA

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Sh. Ravish Sood & Dr. M. L. Meena

reassessment proceedings initiated u/s 147/148 by the AO were void ab-initio because the reasons recorded by the AO to issue notice u/s 148 are reasons to suspect and not reasons to believe. 4. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred on facts and law in confirming the taxability of Rs. 32,00,000/- as Long Term Capital Gain without allowing

SHRI BARJINDERPAL SINGH BHULLAR,MOHALI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- 1 (3), BATHINDA

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Sh. Ravish Sood & Dr. M. L. Meena

reassessment proceedings initiated u/s 147/148 by the AO were void ab-initio because the reasons recorded by the AO to issue notice u/s 148 are reasons to suspect and not reasons to believe. 4. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred on facts and law in confirming the taxability of Rs. 32,00,000/- as Long Term Capital Gain without allowing

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

SHRI HARSH VARDHAN ,JALANDHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR

Bench: Sh. Ravish Sood & Dr. M. L. Meena

property to which the aforesaid Notice u/s 148, dated 11.03.2015 was addressed, without putting up any efforts to locate the whereabouts of the assessee, which he could have easily gathered by going no further but referring/consulting the assessment records of the assessee, had however, most arbitrarily by way of an idle formality, or, in fact, an eye wash

SMT. ASHA CHHABRA,BATHINDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(1), BATHINDA

In the result, the ground no

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

reassessment proceedings were initiated to verify the source of investment in the purchase of plot and construction of house. Hence, the reasons to believe as recorded by the AO were infact reasons to suspect. d) The finding of the CIT(A) in para-3.2 that "At the stage of notice, it is 'the believe' of the AO based on facts

SMT. GURJEET KAUR,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- IV (2),, JALANDHAR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our

Bench: Sh. Ravish Sood & Dr. M. L. Meena

House Jalandhar Cantt Road, Jalandhar PAN: AIKPK 9383L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sh. Surinder Mahajan, CA Respondent by: Sh. Sunil Gautam, CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 22.12.2021 Date of Pronouncement: 21.02.2022 ORDER PER BENCH : The present appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the respective orders passed by the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-2, Jalandhar, dated 19.07.2017, which

SMT. GURJEET KAUR,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- IV (2),, JALANDHAR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our

Bench: Sh. Ravish Sood & Dr. M. L. Meena

House Jalandhar Cantt Road, Jalandhar PAN: AIKPK 9383L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sh. Surinder Mahajan, CA Respondent by: Sh. Sunil Gautam, CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 22.12.2021 Date of Pronouncement: 21.02.2022 ORDER PER BENCH : The present appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the respective orders passed by the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-2, Jalandhar, dated 19.07.2017, which

SH. VARINDER KUMAR SOUL,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3(2), JALANDHAR

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 451(Asr)/2017 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Pan: Cvips 5218R

147. No contention in its 4 ITA No.451 (Asr)/2017(A.Y.2012-13) Varinder Kumar Soul v. ITO respect in fact stands raised before us. Rather, could not be inasmuch as the assessee, after failing to disclose any additional income per the return in pursuance to notice u/s. 148, offers additional rental income (at Rs.385,830 - which, as it appears, should

SH. SUKHBIR SINGH BADAL,,MUKTSAR vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, BATHINDA

Appeal stand allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Udayan Das Gupta, Jm आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 411/Asr/2010 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2000-01) Shri Sukhbir Singh Badal Dcit-Circle-Ii बनाम/ Vs. S/O Parkash Singh Badal Bhatinda. Vpo Badal, District Muktsar "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Abspb-1568-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/Appellant By : Shri Ashwani Kumar, Ms. Deepali Aggarwal Ms. Muskan Garg (Cas) –Ld. Ars ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Charan Dass (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Sr. Dr

147 is bad in law in as much as the Learned Assessing Officer did not make any addition on the ground on which the case was reopened. Since the additional ground is merely a legal ground and connected with ground no.2, the same is admitted. 2. The Ld. AR, Shri Ashwani Kumar, advanced arguments on legal grounds as well

SHRIMATI RITU KAPOOR,SRINAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-III(2), SRINAGAR

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

Housing Bank is reduced from 1/3rd share of the sale price of the property in question there remains no capital gain in the hands of the appellant on which the tax may be imposed. 9. That the Ld. CIT(A) has also erred in not deleting the interest charged u/s 234-B of the Income Tax Act as this interest

SHRI SUCHHA SINGH THROUGH L/R RANJIT SINGH,KAPUTHALLA vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1, JALANDHAR

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Shri Udayan Dasgupta, Jm

House, Jalandhar City Punjab – 144001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. AXAPS-9513-K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant by : Sh. Sandeep Vijh (CA) – Ld. AR ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent by : Sh. Farhat Khan (Ld. CIT) - DR सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date of Hearing : 02-02-2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date of Pronouncement 11-02-2026 : आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant

SH.DIDAR SINGH,PHAGWARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, PHAGWARA

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

Bench: Sh. Laliet Kumar & Dr. M. L. Meena

reassessment proceedings u/s 147/148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. B. That the CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the verification letters u/s 133(6) were issued by the ITO Ludhiana who had no jurisdiction on the case of the assessee. C. That the CIT(A) has wrongly upheld the addition of Rs.15960000/- made by the ITO u/s 69 without

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

house at P.O. Box No. 20458, Manama, Bahrain, a villa at Rifa View, Golf Course Road, Awali, Bahrain. He was also the owner of a villa at Emirates Road, Legend Colony, Dubai, Flat no. 3102, Tower 4, Ajman 1, Dubai and a Flat at Sports City, Emirates Road, Dubai. It is further submitted that he held 20 % of the equity

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

house at P.O. Box No. 20458, Manama, Bahrain, a villa at Rifa View, Golf Course Road, Awali, Bahrain. He was also the owner of a villa at Emirates Road, Legend Colony, Dubai, Flat no. 3102, Tower 4, Ajman 1, Dubai and a Flat at Sports City, Emirates Road, Dubai. It is further submitted that he held 20 % of the equity

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

house at P.O. Box No. 20458, Manama, Bahrain, a villa at Rifa View, Golf Course Road, Awali, Bahrain. He was also the owner of a villa at Emirates Road, Legend Colony, Dubai, Flat no. 3102, Tower 4, Ajman 1, Dubai and a Flat at Sports City, Emirates Road, Dubai. It is further submitted that he held 20 % of the equity