ISHAR INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELPOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,BATHINDA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, BATHINDA

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

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Hybrid Hearing) I.T.A. No. 686/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2022-23

Capital IQ (India) (P.) Ltd. vs. ACIT, 158 taxmann.com 12 (Hyd. Trib). Nehru Memorial Education Society vs. ITO (Exemp.) 161 taxmann.com 312 (Cochin Trib.). 7. Regarding the claim of unabsorbed depreciation brought forward amounting to Rs.1,50,49,432/- the Ld AR submitted that the first appellate authority has denied the set off observing that no adjustment was made

GURU NANAK MILK PRODUCTS ,FEROZEPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

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

forward losses of earlier years and also Hon’ble ITAT has allowed the appeal of assessee and no addition was sustained and all the claims were accepted. Sir, it is also submitted that Hon’ble CIT(A) in the Appellate order last page stated that assessee has not taken any such ground of set off of the losses, in this

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

loss of Rs. 30,618/- and carried transaction of Rs. 61,97,37,626/-, which also proves beyond any doubt that assessee had not traded only in one script as alleged by the Ld. Assessing Officer. During the period under consideration assessee invested /traded in multiple scripts, which was entirely ignored by the Ld. Assessing Officer. Sir, assesee invested

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

loss of Rs. 30,618/- and carried transaction of Rs. 61,97,37,626/-, which also proves beyond any doubt that assessee had not traded only in one script as alleged by the Ld. Assessing Officer. During the period under consideration assessee invested /traded in multiple scripts, which was entirely ignored by the Ld. Assessing Officer. Sir, assesee invested

M/S SHANKAR RICE & GENERAL MILLS ,MOGA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE, MOGA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

carry forward of losses. Chapter has been placed after Chapter IV and V, It comes into play only after the computation of total income under the various heads of income in terms of in terms of Chapter IV has been done. Income falling under Chapter VI is taxed by aggregating the same with the income quantified in terms of Chapter

M/S RAMAN KUMAR AGGARWAL,GURDASPUR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER .OF. INCOME. TAX , AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

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

carried out. B) PAYMENT FOR PURCHASE MADE IN CASH: The purchase payments were made in cash and not through the normal banking channel therefore the same were non-verifiable from the authentic supporting details such as bank accounts/documents. On one side, assessee is claiming that money is received through banking channel and so transaction is genuine, but what the assessee

SH.GAURAV AGGARWAL,GURDAS PUR vs. DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

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

carried out. B) PAYMENT FOR PURCHASE MADE IN CASH: The purchase payments were made in cash and not through the normal banking channel therefore the same were non-verifiable from the authentic supporting details such as bank accounts/documents. On one side, assessee is claiming that money is received through banking channel and so transaction is genuine, but what the assessee

SMT. DEEPTI AGGARWAL,GURDAS PUR vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

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

carried out. B) PAYMENT FOR PURCHASE MADE IN CASH: The purchase payments were made in cash and not through the normal banking channel therefore the same were non-verifiable from the authentic supporting details such as bank accounts/documents. On one side, assessee is claiming that money is received through banking channel and so transaction is genuine, but what the assessee

SH. RAMAN KUMAR AGGARWAL,GURDAS PUR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

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

carried out. B) PAYMENT FOR PURCHASE MADE IN CASH: The purchase payments were made in cash and not through the normal banking channel therefore the same were non-verifiable from the authentic supporting details such as bank accounts/documents. On one side, assessee is claiming that money is received through banking channel and so transaction is genuine, but what the assessee

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3, SRINAGAR vs. M/S TRUMBO CEMENT INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED, SRINAGAR

In the result, the Ground no-1 of the Revenue for ITA No

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

carry out his own investigations by exercising powers conferred u/s 131 or u/s 133(6) of the I.T. Act, 1961. In this case, the Assessing Officer has not made any such efforts and failed to take any remedial action in the hands of the Directors, if he was of the opinion that they should have shown iand transactions and Capita

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3, SRINAGAR vs. M/S TRUMBO CEMENT INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED , SRINAGAR

In the result, the Ground no-1 of the Revenue for ITA No

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

carry out his own investigations by exercising powers conferred u/s 131 or u/s 133(6) of the I.T. Act, 1961. In this case, the Assessing Officer has not made any such efforts and failed to take any remedial action in the hands of the Directors, if he was of the opinion that they should have shown iand transactions and Capita

POONAM MARWAHA,AMRITSAR vs. ACIT DCIT CEN CIR, AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee is allowed

loss of revenue, or where two views\nare possible and AO has taken one view with which the CIT does not agree, it cannot\nbe treated as an erroneous order prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue, unless the\nview taken by the AO is totally unsustainable in law. In this regard reliance is being\nplaced upon the following case

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

loss under the head capital gains which, in the opinion of Ld. AO, was assessable under the head business income. However, the basic condition viz. furnishing of inaccurate particulars / concealment of particulars of income so as to attract the provisions of Section 271(l)(c) have remained unfulfilled in the present case. Therefore, penalty was not justified and the stand

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

loss under the head capital gains which, in the opinion of Ld. AO, was assessable under the head business income. However, the basic condition viz. furnishing of inaccurate particulars / concealment of particulars of income so as to attract the provisions of Section 271(l)(c) have remained unfulfilled in the present case. Therefore, penalty was not justified and the stand

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

loss under the head capital gains which, in the opinion of Ld. AO, was assessable under the head business income. However, the basic condition viz. furnishing of inaccurate particulars / concealment of particulars of income so as to attract the provisions of Section 271(l)(c) have remained unfulfilled in the present case. Therefore, penalty was not justified and the stand

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

loss under the head capital gains which, in the opinion of Ld. AO, was assessable under the head business income. However, the basic condition viz. furnishing of inaccurate particulars / concealment of particulars of income so as to attract the provisions of Section 271(l)(c) have remained unfulfilled in the present case. Therefore, penalty was not justified and the stand

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

loss under the head capital gains which, in the opinion of Ld. AO, was assessable under the head business income. However, the basic condition viz. furnishing of inaccurate particulars / concealment of particulars of income so as to attract the provisions of Section 271(l)(c) have remained unfulfilled in the present case. Therefore, penalty was not justified and the stand

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

loss under the head capital gains which, in the opinion of Ld. AO, was assessable under the head business income. However, the basic condition viz. furnishing of inaccurate particulars / concealment of particulars of income so as to attract the provisions of Section 271(l)(c) have remained unfulfilled in the present case. Therefore, penalty was not justified and the stand

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

loss under the head capital gains which, in the opinion of Ld. AO, was assessable under the head business income. However, the basic condition viz. furnishing of inaccurate particulars / concealment of particulars of income so as to attract the provisions of Section 271(l)(c) have remained unfulfilled in the present case. Therefore, penalty was not justified and the stand