SHRI RAJ KUMAR ( M/S RADHIKA SALES CORP ), AMRITSAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- 3 (3), AMRITSAR

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

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

142 taxmann.com 544 (Jaipur - Trib.). Section 145, read with sections 68 and 133, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Method of accounting - Estimation of income (Discrepancy in receipts as shown in 26AS) - Assessment year 2013-14 - Case of assessee-contractor was selected for scrutiny through CASS due to difference in turnover between Form 26AS and books of account

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

142(1) dated 17.10.2019. The assessment is thus erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. 5. As mentioned above, the assessment has been concluded In this case by the Assessing Officer without carrying out the necessary enquiries and verifications on the issue flagged under CASS for which the case had been selected for scrutiny, as well as other issue

SH. FARUKH JEHAN ZEB ,SRINAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, ANANT NAG

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

142(1) of the Act along with questionnaire was also issued on 21.7.2015 and the assessee was asked to file certain information along with books of account, bills, vouchers and supporting other evidence on the date of hearing fixed for 31.7.2015. On the said date neither the assessee appeared nor any reply was filed. Another opportunity was given

SHRI RAVINDER SACHDEVA,AMRITSAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -5 (4), AMRITSAR

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

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

section 68. 2. That the order passed by the AO is bad in the eyes of law as no notice u/s 148 was ever served on the assessee and similarly no notice u/s 142(1

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, tax on this income was to be charged under section 115BBE even if it had been declared by the assessee in the return of income. Income has been erroneously taxed at lower tax rate in this case causing prejudice

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, tax on this income was to be charged under section 115BBE even if it had been declared by the assessee in the return of income. Income has been erroneously taxed at lower tax rate in this case causing prejudice

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, tax on this income was to be charged under section 115BBE even if it had been declared by the assessee in the return of income. Income has been erroneously taxed at lower tax rate in this case causing prejudice

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

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR vs. M/S JASDEEP KAUR CHADHA, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the revenue appeal is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Udayan Das Gupta & Sh. Khettra Mohan Roy

section 68” 6.1 In this regard, it appears that these names and the amount have been taken from the 03 parties out of 07 are tabulated as under: Name of Person Amount Received Sh.Vinod Kumar 20,00,000/- Smt. Pawandeep Kaur 20,00,000/- Sh. Jagjit Singh 11,00,000/- 6.2 The ld. AO further observed that these parties

JASDEEP KAUR CHADHA-JALANDHAR,PUNJAB vs. JAO THE DCIT CIRCLE-4 JALANDHAR, PUNJAB

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the revenue appeal is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Udayan Das Gupta & Sh. Khettra Mohan Roy

section 68” 6.1 In this regard, it appears that these names and the amount have been taken from the 03 parties out of 07 are tabulated as under: Name of Person Amount Received Sh.Vinod Kumar 20,00,000/- Smt. Pawandeep Kaur 20,00,000/- Sh. Jagjit Singh 11,00,000/- 6.2 The ld. AO further observed that these parties

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

142(1) of the Act were issued and duly served upon the assessee. The objection raised by the assessee on re-opening of assessment u/s 153A of the IT Act,1961 vide letter dated 01.05.2018 has also been settled by speaking order dated 30 July/01 August 2018 passed by the AO which is also mentioned in the assessment order

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

142(1) of the Act were issued and duly served upon the assessee. The objection raised by the assessee on re-opening of assessment u/s 153A of the IT Act,1961 vide letter dated 01.05.2018 has also been settled by speaking order dated 30 July/01 August 2018 passed by the AO which is also mentioned in the assessment order

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

142(1) of the Act were issued and duly served upon the assessee. The objection raised by the assessee on re-opening of assessment u/s 153A of the IT Act,1961 vide letter dated 01.05.2018 has also been settled by speaking order dated 30 July/01 August 2018 passed by the AO which is also mentioned in the assessment order

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(2), JAMMU vs. SH. NEERAJ AGGARWAL , JAMMU

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 349/(Asr)/2017 Assessment Year: 2010-11

142(1): 4 ITO v. Neeraj Aggarwal “In view of the above, it is established beyond doubt that you are intentionally, deliberately and willfully avoiding the assessment proceedings for A.Y. 2010-11 by not furnishing the remaining details of questionnaire dated 11.12.2012 and by not producing the Books of account along with supporting Bills & vouchers for verification for the reasons

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

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee is allowed

1 of brief synopsis.\n2.\n[2015]\n60\ntaxmann.com\n(Kolkata - Trib.)\nIN THE\nITAT\nKOLKATA BENCH\n'B'\nSubhlakshmi Vanijya\n(P.) Ltd.\nCommissioner\nIncome-tax-I,\nKolkata\nV.\nof\n60\nSection 68, read with section 263, of\nthe Income-tax Act, 1961 - Cash\ncredit (Share capital) Assessment\nyears 2008-09 to 2010-11 - Assessee\nfiled return offering

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

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

Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961? 3. On the date of hearing, there was no physical appearance by the assessee or his Ld. AR in the court and there was no appearance by any representative in virtual (on line video) mode either, and a written submission has been filed by the assessee with a prayer to dispose

SHRIMATI MEERA AGGARWAL,JALANDHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE- 2, JALANDHAR

Bench: Shri L. P. Sahu & Shri Ravish Sood

142(1) of the Act, and the assessee had duly participated in the assessment proceedings P a g e | 5 ITA No. 511/Asr./2019 A.Y. 2017-18 Smt.Meera Aggarwal Vs. ACIT before the A.O, the CIT(A) was not persuaded to subscribe to the claim of the assessee that as the A.O had made a mention of Sec. 153A along

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

142(1) of the Act, and non-compliance, the AO completed assessment u/s 144 of the Act on 27.12.2019, with an addition 3 Raj Dev v. ITO u/s 68 of the Act of Rs. 28,50,000/- as unexplained money and assessed the total income of the assessee at Rs. 28,50,000/- under section