AL RASHEED CHARITABLE SOCIETY,HARYANA vs. JCIT, EXEMPTIONS, CHANDIGARH

Appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

246A of the Act\nwhich is hereinafter referred to as the “impugned order”. The relevant A.Y\nis 2016-17 and the corresponding previous year period is from 01/04/2015\nto 31/03/2016.\n2.\nFactual Matrix\n2.1\nThe Return of Income for the A.Y.2016-17 was filed by the assessee\non 11.10.2016 at Nil income and the same was processed under section\n143

RAM KUMAR,NEHRU GARDEN COLONY vs. ITO WARD 2 KAITHAL, AAYKAR BHAWAN, AMBALA ROAD KAITHAL

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

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

246A of the Act, before the Ld. CIT(A) who by the impugned order has dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 14. That the assessee being aggrieved by the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) has preferred second appeal before this Tribunal and has raised following grounds of appeal: 1. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- NFAC, erred

RAM KUMAR,NEHRU GARDEN COLONY vs. ITO WARD 2, KAITHAL

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

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

246A of the Act, before the Ld. CIT(A) who by the impugned order has dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 14. That the assessee being aggrieved by the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) has preferred second appeal before this Tribunal and has raised following grounds of appeal: 1. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- NFAC, erred

BALWANT SINGH DHINDSA, ADV. SO KARTAR SINGH, #185 STREET NO. 11, PUNIA COLONY, SANGRUR, PUNJAB,PUNJAB vs. ITO WARD SANGRUR, PUNJAB

In the result, appeal of the assessee is\ndismissed

246A of the Act before the First Appellate\nAuthority i.e. CIT(A) who by “impugned order” has partly\nallowed the first appeal of the assessee, by treating sum\nof Rs.18,07,500/- as unexplained money under Section\n69A of the Act. In so far as remaining amount of Rs.10\nlakh is concerned, CIT(A) in para 5.2.3 held as under

JAGJIT SINGH ,PATIALA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, PATIALA , PATIALA

In the result we set aside the impugned order and remand the case back to the file of Ld

Bench: This Tribunal. The Assessee Is Aggrieved By The Order Bearing No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023- 24/1058720011(1) Dt. 13/12/2023 Of The Ld. Cit(A) Passed Under Section 250 Of The Act Which Is Hereinafter Referred To As The “Impugned Order”. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2011-12 & The Corresponding Previous Year Period Is From 01/04/2010 To 31/03/2011. 2. Factual Matrix

271(1)(b) Opportunity letter 04 06.2018 11 06.2018 -do- Show cause to penalty u/s 22 06 2018 28 06.2018 -do- 27l(1)(b) Notice u/s 142(1) 19.07.2018 26.07.2018 -do- Notice u/s 142(1) 06.08.2018 13.08.2018 -do- Notice u/s 142(1) 06.09.2018 12.09.2018 -do- Show cause notice 19.09.2018 27.09.2018 -do- Opportunity letter 22 10.2018 26.10.2018 -do- ! 2.5 That

ATAM PARKASH,PATIALA vs. CIT(APPEALS), PATIALA, PATIALA

Bench: SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

246A of the Act as he was aggrieved by the Assessment Order dt. 11/02/2014 passed under section 144 of the Act. 2. Factual Matrix 2.1 That the assessee filed return declaring on income of Rs. 4,44,070/- on 31/03/2012. Thereafter, the case was selected for scrutiny through CASS. Notice under section

KANGRA VALLEY GARDEN HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED,KANGRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD DHARAMSHALA, HIMACHAL PRADESH, DHARAMSHALA

Appeal of the assessee is allowed as and by

Bench: This Tribunal As & By Way Of Second Appeal.

u/s 68 were completely looked into. (ii) Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Nr Portfolio Pvt. Ltd. on 22 November, 2013 "Whether or not onus is discharged depends upon facts of each case. It depends on whether the two parties are related or known to each; the manner or mode by which the parties approached each other, whether the transaction

KANGRA VALLEY GARDEN HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED,KANGRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD DHARAMSHALA, HIMACHAL PRADESH, DHARAMSHALA

Appeal of the assessee is allowed as and by

Bench: This Tribunal As & By Way Of Second Appeal.

u/s 68 were completely looked into. (ii) Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Nr Portfolio Pvt. Ltd. on 22 November, 2013 "Whether or not onus is discharged depends upon facts of each case. It depends on whether the two parties are related or known to each; the manner or mode by which the parties approached each other, whether the transaction

KANGRA VALLEY GARDEN HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED,KANGRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD DHARAMSHALA, HIMACHAL PRADESH, DHARAMSHALA

Appeal of the assessee is allowed as and by

Bench: This Tribunal As & By Way Of Second Appeal.

u/s 68 were completely looked into. (ii) Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Nr Portfolio Pvt. Ltd. on 22 November, 2013 "Whether or not onus is discharged depends upon facts of each case. It depends on whether the two parties are related or known to each; the manner or mode by which the parties approached each other, whether the transaction