M/S SANT BABA BHAG SINGH MEMORIAL CHARITABLE SOCIETY,JALANDHAR vs. D.C.I.T, CIRCLE - 1 (EXEMPTION), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 432/(Asr)/2017 Assessment Year: 2014-15

68 of the Act. Section 115 BBE shall, consequently, becomes superfluous. The assessee, therefore, who has challenged this aspect per Gd. 6 before us (Gd. 5 before the ld. CIT(A)), ought to have the benefit of the floor level qua this sum, or any other for 7 Sant Baba Bhag Singh M. C. Society v. Dy. CIT that

SHRI SATBIR SINGH BHULLAR,AMRITSAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- 5 (4), AMRITSAR

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

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

section 147 r.w.s 144 of the Act, with an addition of Rs. 7,37,948/- by taking into consideration peak amount date 24.12.2017 on account of cash deposited in ICICI bank. Aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) uphold the order of assessment. Being dissatisfied the assessee filed an appeal before

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

68 of the act by observing as under: "As would be evident from above that the assessee has kept silence all the times since nobody attended the assessment proceedings nor furnished any requisite information/documents. I am, therefore, constrained to frame the ex- parte assessment under section 144

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

section (2), have not been regularly followed by the assessee, the Assessing Officer may make an assessment in the manner provided u/s. 144.’ Why, in a particular case the AO may be satisfied with the assesse’s accounts even without the production of account books, so that nothing turns thereon per se, but on the reason/s why he finds

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

68 were justified- 4. Suman Poddar Vs ITO Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 26864 OF 2019, [2019] 112 taxmann.com 330 (SC)- Where High Court upheld Tribunal's order holding that assessee's claim for exemption under section 10(38) could not be allowed because share transactions 19 I.T.A. Nos. 346 & 347/Asr/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 were

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

68 were justified- 4. Suman Poddar Vs ITO Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 26864 OF 2019, [2019] 112 taxmann.com 330 (SC)- Where High Court upheld Tribunal's order holding that assessee's claim for exemption under section 10(38) could not be allowed because share transactions 19 I.T.A. Nos. 346 & 347/Asr/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 were

SHRI JASHANDEEP SINGH SIDHU,BATHINDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- 1 (3), BATHINDA

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

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

section 68 of the Act cannot apply to bank statement etc. which makes the addition as bad in law. 8. That the ld. CIT(A) erred on facts and law in confirming the ex- parte assessment orders passed by the ld. AO u/s. 144

SHRI JASHANDEEP SINGH SIDHU,BATHINDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(3), BATHINDA

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

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

section 68 of the Act cannot apply to bank statement etc. which makes the addition as bad in law. 8. That the ld. CIT(A) erred on facts and law in confirming the ex- parte assessment orders passed by the ld. AO u/s. 144

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

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

section 292C of the Act under which presumption is raised which is rebuttable and the assessee has duly rebutted by submitting affidavit of her father which has been accepted by the department. 12. That the assessee reserves the right to amend, alter or raise an additional grounds of appeal before the disposal of this appeal.” Search and seizure proceedings

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

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

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

144 and section 144B of the Act, 1961 dated 29.03.2022. 2 I.T.A. No. 9/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-15 2. The grounds of appeal preferred by the assessee in form 36 has been subsequently revised and the revised grounds are as follows: “1. That the assessment order framed by the AO is void ab-initio having been framed without giving

SHRI MANJIT SINGH S/O SHRI.GURDEV SINGH KHERA,MOGA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER -II, MOGA

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

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

68 of the Act. 3. That the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in ignoring the fact that the Ld. Assessing Officer was not justified in framing the Assessment under section 144

SHRI HARPHOOL BHARDWAJ,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFICER, NAKODAR, NAKODAR

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

144 needs to be quashed. Observations of Honorable CIT(A): The Honorable Commissioner (Appeals) has not made any comment on the 1st Ground of appeal. The issue was pressed upon as per the submissions, logics and facts but the CIT-(A) did not bother to give his judgement on the this Ground taken by the Assessee. Submissions before the Honorable

SHRI VARINDER KUMAR,BATALA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2, BATALA

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

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

68 are not at all applicable to the present facts and circumstances of this case as the assessee is not maintaining any books of accounts. The show cause notice u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1 )(c) accompanying the assessment order was not a legal and valid notice. As such the penalty order is bad in the eyes

M/S. AMAN TRADING CORP.,JAMMU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAMMU

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

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 255/(Asr)/2013 Assessment Year: 1997-98

144, i.e., as a best judgment assessment, on 12.03.2000 (PB pgs. 78-79), making an addition u/s. 68 for Rs.2 lacs, besides another for Rs.1,988, being the interest allowed to partners (in view of section

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

144 of the Act. 2. The assessee has taken the following grounds: “1. That the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-5, Ludhiana is against law and facts ofthe case. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in sustaining the AO's order to the extent ofconsidering the amount of Rs. 12,50,321/- as Income from undisclosed sources

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

144 with addition amount of Rs.6,41,726/- for payment to the credit card by the assessee. The source of the payment was unexplained before the ld. AO. The addition was confirmed amount to Rs. 6,41,726/- u/s 68 of the Act& assessment order was framed. The aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before

SHRI MOHD MANZOOR,RAJOURI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -2 (3), JAMMU

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

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

144 are bad in law as, the same is made on the basis of glaring mistakes ignoring the inter-bank transfers, interest received, etc which are highlighted in the following table: - TABLE A: Detail of contra entries from J&K Saving Bank account no 145 to CCL Account I.T.A. No.166/Asr/2022 6 Assessment Year: 2017-18 No 018 Name