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

250(6) of the Income Tax Act, is bad in law as the same has been disposed off without examining the merits of the case and is against the principles of natural justice. 3. That the CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 737948/- on account of cash deposited in ICICI Bank Account No 006601529228 u/s 68

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

6 and paras 5.4, 5.8 of the assessment and the appellate order respectively), could be relevant, i.e., considering the confirmation by Sant Dilawar Singh ji by way of an affidavit dated 04.10.2016 (PB pg. 90). The property of the Dera (DSBBS), including its’ bank accounts, is held in the name of its’ Mukh Sewadar, under trust, as indeed were

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

6), such loan could not be treated as unexplained credit under 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

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

6), such loan could not be treated as unexplained credit under 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

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, JAMMU vs. M/S MOHD ASRAF SHEIKH, JAMMU

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed

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

6. Per contra, the Ld. AR for the Assessee has supported the impugned order. He submitted that he had received advances from the buyers against Land Parcels and all such advantage were received either through account payee check or bank transfer only and none of the advances were received in cash. The learning they are submitted that some

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

In the result, Assessee's appeal is allowed

section 115BAC\nis denied to the assessee, then, in such a case, the\nassessee is entitled to avail deduction under chapter\nVI-A of the income tax act 1961.\n6.\nThat the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not accepting the\nform 10 IE and revised return filed on 25.03.2022\nwithout considering the fact that it was filed before

SH. VIKRANT KANSHAL,BATHINDA vs. THE ICNOMET-AX OFFICER,, BATHINDA

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

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 367/Asr/2014 Assessment Year: 2008-09

6 Vikrant Kansal Prop. V. K. Teleservices v ITO explanation as to its nature and source, we find nothing amiss in the invocation of section 68 by the AO. Further, even assuming that the same (the cash under reference), for some reason, remained to be entered in the assessee’s books of account, which were never produced or examined

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

250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which has emanated from the order of the 2 I.T.A. Nos. 346 & 347/Asr/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 DCIT, Central Circle, Jalandhar passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act, 1961 dated 29.03.2022. 2. Grounds of appeal taken by the assessee in ITA No. 346/Asr/2024 for A.Y. 2014-15 in Form

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

250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which has emanated from the order of the 2 I.T.A. Nos. 346 & 347/Asr/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 DCIT, Central Circle, Jalandhar passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act, 1961 dated 29.03.2022. 2. Grounds of appeal taken by the assessee in ITA No. 346/Asr/2024 for A.Y. 2014-15 in Form

LATE. SH. GURMAIL. SINGH S/O. SH. LAL SINGH,SHRI MUKAT SAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF 9INCOME TAX. CIRCLE -II, BATHINDA

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

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

250(6) by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Bathinda in Appeal No. 135-IT/17-18 dated 12.11.2018 is contrary to law and facts of the case and that he gravelly erred in upholding the penalty of Rs.54,61,000/- imposed by the ld. Assessing Officer under Late Sh. Gurmail Singh v. Dy. CIT & Ors section

LATE. SH. GURMAIL SINGH.S/O. LATE SH. LAL SINGH,SRI MUKTSAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -II, BATHINDA

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

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

250(6) by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Bathinda in Appeal No. 135-IT/17-18 dated 12.11.2018 is contrary to law and facts of the case and that he gravelly erred in upholding the penalty of Rs.54,61,000/- imposed by the ld. Assessing Officer under Late Sh. Gurmail Singh v. Dy. CIT & Ors section

SH. ARASHPREET SINGH. S/O.LATE.SH. GURMAIL SINGH,MUKTSAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX .CIRCLE-II, BATHINDA

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

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

250(6) by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Bathinda in Appeal No. 135-IT/17-18 dated 12.11.2018 is contrary to law and facts of the case and that he gravelly erred in upholding the penalty of Rs.54,61,000/- imposed by the ld. Assessing Officer under Late Sh. Gurmail Singh v. Dy. CIT & Ors section

SH. ARSPREET SINGH . S/O. LATE. SH. GURMAIL SINGH ,MUKTSAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE .II, BATHINDA

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

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

250(6) by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Bathinda in Appeal No. 135-IT/17-18 dated 12.11.2018 is contrary to law and facts of the case and that he gravelly erred in upholding the penalty of Rs.54,61,000/- imposed by the ld. Assessing Officer under Late Sh. Gurmail Singh v. Dy. CIT & Ors section

LATE. SH. GURMAIL SINGH S/O. SH. LAL SINGH,SRI MUKATSAR vs. DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -II, BATHINDA

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

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

250(6) by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Bathinda in Appeal No. 135-IT/17-18 dated 12.11.2018 is contrary to law and facts of the case and that he gravelly erred in upholding the penalty of Rs.54,61,000/- imposed by the ld. Assessing Officer under Late Sh. Gurmail Singh v. Dy. CIT & Ors section

SH. ARASHPREET SINGH S/O. LATE SH. GURMAIL SINGH,MUKTSAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-II, BATHINDA

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

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

250(6) by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Bathinda in Appeal No. 135-IT/17-18 dated 12.11.2018 is contrary to law and facts of the case and that he gravelly erred in upholding the penalty of Rs.54,61,000/- imposed by the ld. Assessing Officer under Late Sh. Gurmail Singh v. Dy. CIT & Ors section

LATE. SH. GUMAIL SINGH . S/O. SH. LAL SINGH,MUKTSAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -II, BATHINDA

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

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

250(6) by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Bathinda in Appeal No. 135-IT/17-18 dated 12.11.2018 is contrary to law and facts of the case and that he gravelly erred in upholding the penalty of Rs.54,61,000/- imposed by the ld. Assessing Officer under Late Sh. Gurmail Singh v. Dy. CIT & Ors section

LATE. SH. GURMAIL. SINGH. S/O. SH. LAL SINGH,SRI MUKATSAR vs. DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -II, BATHINDA

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

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

250(6) by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Bathinda in Appeal No. 135-IT/17-18 dated 12.11.2018 is contrary to law and facts of the case and that he gravelly erred in upholding the penalty of Rs.54,61,000/- imposed by the ld. Assessing Officer under Late Sh. Gurmail Singh v. Dy. CIT & Ors section

SH. ARASHPREET SINGH S/O LATE SH. GURMAIL SINGH,SHRI MUKATSAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-II, BATHINDA

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

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

250(6) by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Bathinda in Appeal No. 135-IT/17-18 dated 12.11.2018 is contrary to law and facts of the case and that he gravelly erred in upholding the penalty of Rs.54,61,000/- imposed by the ld. Assessing Officer under Late Sh. Gurmail Singh v. Dy. CIT & Ors section

SH. ARASHPREET SINGH S/O. LATE SH. GURMAIL SINGH,MUKTSAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CERCLE- II, BATHINDA

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

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

250(6) by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Bathinda in Appeal No. 135-IT/17-18 dated 12.11.2018 is contrary to law and facts of the case and that he gravelly erred in upholding the penalty of Rs.54,61,000/- imposed by the ld. Assessing Officer under Late Sh. Gurmail Singh v. Dy. CIT & Ors section