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

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee is allowed

68,\nhowever, Commissioner exercising his\nrevisionary power under section 263\nset aside assessment orders directing\nAssessing Officer to make fresh\nassessment after conducting detailed\nenquiry and upon satisfying on\ngenuneness of transaction - Whether\norder of Commissioner was not based\non irrelevant considerations and\nfurther in present circumstances, he\nwas not obliged to positively indicate\ndeficiencies in assessment order on\nmerits

HOSHIARPUR TRADERS ,HOSHIARPUR 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

u/s 263. The copy of the ITR along with Audit report for FY 2015-16 is enclosed at page no. 424 to 447 and Cash book Refer page no. 448-485) 2. The copy of the computation of income in which the share of the partner from the firm M/s Hoshiarpur Traders has duly been provided to the PCIT. [Refer

SHRIMATI RAVINDER BAWA,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(3), JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

section 142(1) of the Act on 8.8.2018 and 143(2) of the Act were received. 6. During assessment proceedings, information was filed vide letters dated 05.10.2018, 09.10.2018, 30.11.2018. the information was filled by the assessee credit entry of same date in the account of the assessee includes copy of loan account showing the entry of loan amount

SMT HARNEET KAUR JUNEJA,JALANDHAR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1, JALANDHAR

In the result, appeal of the assessees in ITA Nos

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

68 of the Act had not been discharged by her. 4. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, Learned Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Jalandhar has grossly erred in law in holding that income declared by the assessee was to be taxed u/s 115BBE of the Act. 5. That the order of the Learned Pr. Commissioner

SHRI SUKHJIT SINGH,HOSHIARPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, JALANDHAR

In the result, appeal of the assessees in ITA Nos

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

68 of the Act had not been discharged by her. 4. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, Learned Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Jalandhar has grossly erred in law in holding that income declared by the assessee was to be taxed u/s 115BBE of the Act. 5. That the order of the Learned Pr. Commissioner

SHRI MANMOHAN SINGH KAPUR,HOSHIARPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, JALANDHAR

In the result, appeal of the assessees in ITA Nos

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

68 of the Act had not been discharged by her. 4. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, Learned Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Jalandhar has grossly erred in law in holding that income declared by the assessee was to be taxed u/s 115BBE of the Act. 5. That the order of the Learned Pr. Commissioner

NARINDER AND COMPANY,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(5), JALANDHAR

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

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

revise the assessment order dated 31.12.2019 passed under section 143(3) of the Act on the alleged ground that the same was erroneous in so far as prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue, in view of provisions contained in clause (a) of explanation 2 to section 263(1) inasmuch as the assessing officer had passedthe order without carrying

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

68 read with section 263, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Cash credit (Gift) -Assessment years 2007-08 and 2008-09 - Assessee received certain amount as gifts from his father and sister who were non-residents in India - Assessing Officer after making detailed enquiries, took a view that assessee had duly proved identity, source and creditworthiness of donors - Commissioner, however

SHRI SATISH KUMAR. S/O. SH. HANS RAJ ,HOSHIARPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-4, HOSHIARPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Choudhry & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.संसंसंसं././././I.T.A No.258/Asr/2019 िनधा"रणवष"/A.Y.:2014-15 िनधा"रणवष" िनधा"रणवष" िनधा"रणवष" Shri Satish Kumar S/O Hans Raj, Vs. Principal Commissioner Of B-12, Mch-366/13, Billa Income-Tax-1, Jalandhar House, New Jagatpura, Hoshiarpur Pan: Aawpk 0932 D अपीलाथ" Appellant अपीलाथ" ""यथ"/Respondent ""यथ" अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" ""यथ" ""यथ"

68,192 on weig bridge expenses. As these expenses were paid to particular entity which are in the nature of Works contract and liable to TDS under section 194C of the Act. However, the perusal of records suggest that there is nothing on record that TDS was deducted on these payments. The Pr.CIT further, observed that the assessee has debited

SHRI AMRIT PARKASH SEHGAL (HUF),JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(1), JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

68 to 71) and that in the proceeding’s u/s 154 of the act which were filed (APB, Pg. 72-115). The ld. AR also argued that the assessee has filed detailed replies to notice of the 142(1) of the Act along with annexure A, B & C. 10. The ld. AR vehemently argued that the ld. PCIT has initiated

MAX FINANCIAL SERVICE LIMITED ,NAWANSHAHR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1, JALANDHAR

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

263 proceedings, there was no occasion to demonstrate the same to her. That even vis-à-vis the issue of interest the only finding of the Ld. Pr.CIT is that it seems that the interest has not been accounted for. The Ld. Pr.CIT has neither cared to examine this issue during revisionary proceedings, nor investigated the same herself and without

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

revision u/s 263. 5. The Learned CIT A has erred in law and facts and circumstances of the case by not declaring reassessment u/s 147 made on the basis of standalone AIR Information bad in law. 6. The Learned CIT A has erred in law and facts and circumstances of the case by upholding reassessment u/s 147 on the ground

SH. JASWINDER SINGH,BATHINDA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,, BATHINDA

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

revised by him u/s 263 of the Act. For the sake of clarity the relevant extract of the ‘SCN’, dated 19/26.08.2015 is culled out as under : “The case was selected for scrutiny through CASS to examine the source of cash deposits made by the assessee in savings bank accounts. As per copy of bank account maintained with SBOP, Pilibanga