SANJEEV KUMAR KATHURIA,YAMUNA NAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 , YAMUNANAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

24,94,800/- (Rs. 13,860/- X 180 sq.m.). Further, if FMV of construction of the building on the said land is taken at Rs.32,80,500/-/as per calculation given in the Valuation Report on the basis of CPWD rates, the total FMV of the property as on 01.04.2001 works out toRs. 57,75,300/-. However, the Assessing Officer

DAMANDEEP KAUR,MOHALI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL CIRCLE-2), CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed

24, 2023).\n2.\nWithout prejudice to Ground No. 1, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in dismissing the\nappeal of the assessee by disregarding various grounds of appeal raised, which\nare contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case.\n3.\nThat the Ld. CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition of Rs.3,00,000/-\nmade\nby the Ld. Assessing Officer

DAMANDEEP KAUR,MOHALI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL CIRCLE-2), CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed

24, 2023).\n2.\nWithout prejudice to Ground No. 1, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in dismissing the\nappeal of the assessee by disregarding various grounds of appeal raised, which\nare contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case.\n3.\nThat the Ld. CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition of Rs.3,00,000/-\nmade\nby the Ld. Assessing Officer

DAMANDEEP KAUR,MOHALI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL CIRCLE-2), CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed

24, 2023).\n\n2.\nWithout prejudice to Ground No. 1, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in dismissing the\nappeal of the assessee by disregarding various grounds of appeal raised, which\nare contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case.\n\n3.\nThat the Ld. CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition of Rs.3,00,000/-\nmade

DAMANDEEP KAUR,MOHALI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL CIRCLE-2), CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

Transfer Pricing Officer passed under sub-section (3) of section 92CA. For this class of assessees, it prescribes a collegium of three commissioners, once objections are preferred. The Dispute Resolution Panel's powers are coterminous with the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), including the power to confirm, reduce or enhance the variation proposed and to consider the issues not agitated

ARJESH KUMAR,PATIALA vs. ITO NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE , DELHI

24) is inclusive in nature, and several categories of income or deemed income chargeable to tax do not find express mention therein. Further, the Ld. DR refer to Section 4 and 14 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to support the case of the Revenue. It was submitted that the deemed income is chargeable under section

SH. AMARDEEP SINGH ATHWAL,YAMUNANAGAR vs. ITO, WARD-1, YAMUNANAGAR

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

24) is inclusive in nature, and several categories of income or deemed income chargeable to tax do not find express mention therein. Further, the Ld. DR refer to Section 4 and 14 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to support the case of the Revenue. It was submitted that the deemed income is chargeable under section

RANJIT SINGH,PANCHKULA vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR, CPC DEPARTMENT

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

24) is inclusive in nature, and several categories of income or deemed income chargeable to tax do not find express mention therein. Further, the Ld. DR refer to Section 4 and 14 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to support the case of the Revenue. It was submitted that the deemed income is chargeable under section

INCOME TAX OFFICER, FATEHABAD vs. MAHESH NAGPAL, FATEHABAD

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

24) is inclusive in nature, and several categories of income or deemed income chargeable to tax do not find express mention therein. Further, the Ld. DR refer to Section 4 and 14 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to support the case of the Revenue. It was submitted that the deemed income is chargeable under section

PAWAN KUMAR,FATEHABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, FATEHABAD

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

24) is inclusive in nature, and several categories of income or deemed income chargeable to tax do not find express mention therein. Further, the Ld. DR refer to Section 4 and 14 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to support the case of the Revenue. It was submitted that the deemed income is chargeable under section

SMT. SHANKRI DEVI,PANCHKULA vs. ACIT, PANCKULA CIRCLE, PANCHKULA

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

24) is inclusive in nature, and several categories of income or deemed income chargeable to tax do not find express mention therein. Further, the Ld. DR refer to Section 4 and 14 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to support the case of the Revenue. It was submitted that the deemed income is chargeable under section

SH. AMARDEEP SINGH ATHWAL,YAMUNANAGAR vs. ITO, WARD-1, YAMUNANAGAR

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

24) is inclusive in nature, and several categories of income or deemed income chargeable to tax do not find express mention therein. Further, the Ld. DR refer to Section 4 and 14 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to support the case of the Revenue. It was submitted that the deemed income is chargeable under section

BALBIR KUMAR HUF,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO , CHANDIGARH

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

24) is inclusive in nature, and several categories of income or deemed income chargeable to tax do not find express mention therein. Further, the Ld. DR refer to Section 4 and 14 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to support the case of the Revenue. It was submitted that the deemed income is chargeable under section

SAROJ CHAUDHARY BALA,PANCHKULA vs. ITO, WARD-4, PANCHKULA

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

24) is inclusive in nature, and several categories of income or deemed income chargeable to tax do not find express mention therein. Further, the Ld. DR refer to Section 4 and 14 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to support the case of the Revenue. It was submitted that the deemed income is chargeable under section

KAKA SINGH ALIAS GULJAR SINGH,PATIALA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , PATIALA

24) is inclusive in nature, and several categories of\nincome or deemed income chargeable to tax do not find express mention\ntherein. Further, the Ld. DR refer to Section 4 and 14 of the Income Tax Act,\n1961 to support the case of the Revenue. It was submitted that the deemed\nincome is chargeable under section

SH. VIBHAV JAIN,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-III, LUDHIANA

In the result, the ground no

Bench: SHRI. SANJAY GARG (Judicial Member), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

price have already been mentioned therein and the assessment was duly framed under section 143(1) of the Act and thus it was a case of an unabated assessment. 6.1 It was submitted that the said disclosed income / documents cannot be treated as incriminating material. It was further submitted that there is no evidence or document which was found

SH. ASHISH JAIN,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-III, LUDHIANA

In the result, the ground no

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

price have already been mentioned therein and the assessment was duly framed under section 143(1) of the Act and thus it was a case of an unabated assessment. 7.1 It was submitted that the said disclosed income / documents cannot be treated as incriminating material. It was further submitted that there is no evidence or document which was found

SH. BIPAN JAIN,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-III, LUDHIANA

In the result, the ground no

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

price have already been mentioned therein and the assessment was duly framed under section 143(1) of the Act and thus it was a case of an unabated assessment. 7.1 It was submitted that the said disclosed income / documents cannot be treated as incriminating material. It was further submitted that there is no evidence or document which was found