INDER PAL SINGH LEGAL HEIR OF DECEASED SATNAM SINGH 171789, STREET NO.8, GURU TEG BAHADUR JAGRAON,PUNJAB vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1 JAGRAON , PUNJAB

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

246 2,00,000 38 17/5/2017 To Cash 250 2,00,000 39 18/5/2017 To Cash 254 2,00,000 40 19/5/2017 To Cash 258 2,00,000 41 15/2/2018 To Cash 1039 2,00,000 42 16/2/2018 To Cash 1042 2,00,000 43 17/2/2018 To Cash 1045 2,00,000 44 18/2/2018 To Cash

THE BALDUHAK CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE SERVICE SOCIETY LTD.,HAMIRPUR vs. ITO, WARD, HAMIRPUR

Bench: Us Are That The Assessee Is A Cooperative

delay is hereby condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 3. In the present appeal, the assessee has challenged the action of the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi in sustaining the disallowance claimed by the assessee society under section 80P(2)(d) of the Act amounting to Rs. 20,51,316/-. 4. The facts which are emerging from

JAGROOP SINGH,BARNALA vs. ITO, W-1, BARNALA

In the result, the appeal filed by the appellant is treated as dismissed

Bench: This Tribunal. The Assessee Is Aggrieved By The Order Bearing No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/105946628(1) Dt. 08/01/2024 Passed By The Cit(A) Under Section 250(6) Of The Act Which Is Hereinafter Referred To As The “Impugned Order”. The Relevant A.Y. Is 2012-13 & The Corresponding Previous Year Period Is From 01/04/2011 To 31/03/2012. 2. Factual Matrix

section 246 A on 31/05/2022 however the Ld. CIT(A) vide impugned order has dismissed the appeal. Consequently the order of AO stands confirmed at 1st appellate stage. 4. that the assessee being aggrieved by the impugned order has preferred second appeal before this Tribunal and in Form 36 has raised following grounds of appeal before us: 1. On facts

SARU ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED,PATIALA vs. ACIT/DCIT, CEN. CIR., PATIALA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

delay is hereby condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 4. Briefly the facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in the business of undertaking civil projects for Military engineering services under the name and style of M/s Saru Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. and works as a MES contractor. A survey operation under section 133A was conducted