VEENA KHINDRI,SRINAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, SRINAGAR

In the result, Assessee's appeal is allowed

139(1)\nis directory in nature and as such the benefit of lower\ntax rate cannot be denied.\n4.\nThat the order passed u/s 250(6) of the Income Tax\nAct, is bad in law as since the adoption of lower tax\nrate as per section 115BAC cannot be brought under\nthe ambit of adjustment u/s 143(1) which

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

section 68 of the Act. Therefore, the assessee cannot escape from the burden cast upon him and unfortunately in these cases 18 I.T.A. Nos. 346 & 347/Asr/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 the burden is heavy as the facts establish that the shares which were traded by the assessees had phenomenal and fanciful rise in price in a short

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

section 68 of the Act. Therefore, the assessee cannot escape from the burden cast upon him and unfortunately in these cases 18 I.T.A. Nos. 346 & 347/Asr/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 the burden is heavy as the facts establish that the shares which were traded by the assessees had phenomenal and fanciful rise in price in a short

SHRI NASIR AHMED RANGSHU,ANANTNAG vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, SRINAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

139(1) of the Act Rs. 6,06,510/- dated 13.01.2021. The assessee is engaged in the sole proprietorship business of Electronic Goods under the name and style of firm M/s Fancy Electronics. The AO has stated in the assessment order that on the basis of information received from J&K Police at Srinagar Airport, Srinagar, a cash

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, 69, 69A, 69B, 69C or 69D and reflected in the return of income furnished under section 139. Hence

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, 69, 69A, 69B, 69C or 69D and reflected in the return of income furnished under section 139. Hence

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, 69, 69A, 69B, 69C or 69D and reflected in the return of income furnished under section 139. Hence

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

139 and also failed to furnish ITR in response to notice u/s 142(1) of the Act. The AO discussed that as per AIR data the appellant has deposited cash of Rs.28,50,000/- in his bank account during the demonetization period. In view of non-furnishing the Income Tax Return for A.Y.2017-18 in response to notice

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

section 68. Copy of the decision is enclosed at page no. 91. The view of the Delhi High Court in this case has been endorsed by the Supreme Court as the SLP of the revenue was dismissed and stands reported at 380 ITR 64 (Statute). Copy of the order is enclosed at page no. 92. In view

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

section 68. Copy of the decision is enclosed at page no. 91. The view of the Delhi High Court in this case has been endorsed by the Supreme Court as the SLP of the revenue was dismissed and stands reported at 380 ITR 64 (Statute). Copy of the order is enclosed at page no. 92. In view

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

section 68. Copy of the decision is enclosed at page no. 91. The view of the Delhi High Court in this case has been endorsed by the Supreme Court as the SLP of the revenue was dismissed and stands reported at 380 ITR 64 (Statute). Copy of the order is enclosed at page no. 92. In view

SHREE AMAR KSHATRIYA SABHA CHARITABLE TRUST ,JAMMU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- ( EXEMPTIONS), JAMMU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Krinwant Sahay(Hybrid Hearing) I.T.A. No. 492/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2020-21

section 139(4) of the Act (rws I.T.A. No. 492/Asr/2024 6 Assessment Year: 2020-21 139(4A), which has been accepted and assessed by the AO, CPC Bangalore, u/s 143(1), considering the same to be a valid return. He further submitted that in the instant case, the audit report in Form 10B which was supposed to be have

SHRI ABDUL MAJID KAW ,SRINAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- 3 (1), SRINAGAR

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

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

68. The appellant's submission on this account is, thus, considered misdirected. And in any case invocation of a wrong section is a curable defect. 6. Since the appellant has not been able to explain with evidence theclaimofexpenditure through credit card for the purposes of business, no relief canbeaccorded to him. However, considering the appellant's averment regarding payment

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

section 68 are not applicable to the facts of the case. 6. That the order is bad in law and on facts. 7. That the appellant craves leave to add or amend the ground of appeal before the appeal is heard and disposed off.” 3 I.T.A. No. 9/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-15 3. Thereafter, the assessee has preferred

M/S. PUNJAB IRON & STEEL COMPANY LIMITED,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is allowed

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

68 of the Act. 3. Aggrieved from the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A)-5, Ludhiana. During the course of appellate proceedings, the assessee filed additional evidence u/s 46A of the Act. The appeal of the assessee was dismissed vide order dated 28.04.2014 and admission of additional evidence filed was rejected. The assessee filed appeal

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

139(1) of the Act. 3. That the proposal for revision of assessment, order dated 26.12.2018 was submitted by the erstwhile Income Tax Officer, Ward 3 I.T.A. No. 102/Asr/2022 Satvir Kaur v. Pr. CIT 3(5), Zira through the erstwhile Additional Commissioner of Income Tax. Range 3, Ferozepur. On perusal of the proposal and the assessment record

SHRI DEEPAK SETIA, JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR

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

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No.112/Asr/2023 Assessment Year: 2019-20

139(1) and paid the tax in normal rate and treated the income as business income. The ld. AR relied on the order of Sh. Harish Sharma vs. ITO in ITA No. 327/Chd/2020, date of order 11/05/2021 wherein it has been held that: “9. Further, section 68

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

139 by pursuing section 147 the notice was issued u/s 148 and case was reopened. Thereafter, the assessment was completed with addition amount of Rs.1,61,43,719/- and Rs.4,29,431/- which works out total amount of Rs.1,75,73,150/- related to deposit in bank from unexplained source. The addition was framed