SH. MAHESH CHUGH,CHANDIGARH vs. PR.CIT-2, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

delay is, accordingly, condoned. Ordered accordingly. 4. The ld. AR, accordingly, was directed to address the grievance of the assessee in the appeal filed. On behalf of the assessee, it was submitted at the outset that the assessee does not wish to specifically press ground No. 2 as the issue would stand addressed by the other grounds. ITA 104 /CHD/2021

SH. SHEO RAM,JAGADHARI vs. ITO, YAMUNANAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly

Bench: Ms.Diva Singh & Ms.Annapurna Guptash. Sheo Ram, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Village Jaroda, Ward 3, Jagadhari. Yamunanagar. Pan: Fhcps9095D (Appellant) (Respondent)

condone the delay. This order was pronounced in open court in the presence of both the parties and hearing of the appeal was thereafter directed to be proceeded with. 6. We shall now proceed to adjudicate the appeal before us. Brief background of the case is that the Assessing Officer had information about sale of half share of land

SH. JAI RAM,JAGADHARI vs. ITO, YAMUNANAGAR

In the result, both the appeal of different assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

condonation of delay becomes redundant and is therefore disposed as redundant. 6. The hearings resumed. 7. The order of the Shri. Amar Singh in ITA NO. 365/CHD/2017 is being taken as a lead order. 8. The grounds taken by the assessee are as under: 1. The learned CIT (Appeals) has erred in law and facts in confirming an addition

SH. AMAR SINGH,JAGADHARI vs. ITO, YAMUNANAGAR

In the result, both the appeal of different assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

condonation of delay becomes redundant and is therefore disposed as redundant. 6. The hearings resumed. 7. The order of the Shri. Amar Singh in ITA NO. 365/CHD/2017 is being taken as a lead order. 8. The grounds taken by the assessee are as under: 1. The learned CIT (Appeals) has erred in law and facts in confirming an addition

SHRI PARDEEP KUMAR JAIN,ZIRAKPUR vs. ITO, W-2(3), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 190/Chd/2019 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Shri Pradeep Kumar Jain, The Ito, Ward 2(3), बनाम Chandigarh Flat No.222, Orbit Apartments, 6Th Floor, Zirakpur "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Advpj6719P अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

condoned and we proceed to decide the appeal on merits. 4. The assessee in this appeal has taken following grounds of appeal:- 1. That on the facts, circumstances and legal position of the case, the Worthy CIT(A) in Appeal No. 109/14-15 has erred in passing that order in contravention of the provisions of S. 250(6) of the Income

SEEMA SALWAHAN,AMBALA CANTT. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4, AMBALA CANTT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav

54F amounting to Rs.28,92,978/-. The AO has initiated a penalty under Section 270A of the Act. He imposed penalty of Rs.2,87,066/- being 50% of the tax on under reported income. 3. The appeal to the ld. CIT(A) did not bring any relief to the assessee because it was dismissed for the reason that there

JAGDEV SINGH ,AMBALA vs. ITO WARD4 , YAMUNA NAGAR

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

condone the delay for which sufficient cause is shown, and admit the appeal for adjudication. 4. In the present appeal assessee’s main contention is that the Ld. CIT(A) has decided the case without considering the reply, remand report and also the reply to remand report given by him to CIT(A). 5. Briefly the facts of the case