SHRI SATBIR SINGH BHULLAR,AMRITSAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- 5 (4), AMRITSAR

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

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

capital gain tax, Thiruvalla Assessing Officer erred in treating said deposit as unexplained investment of assessee [In favour of assessee] 6. 2015] 61 taxmann.com 425 Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - (Chandigarh - Trib.) IN THE Cash

M/S BLUE CITY TOWNSHIP & COLONIZERS,AMRITSAR. vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,, AMRITSAR.

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

capital gain arise, scrutiny is necessary. The information available on record in the case of assessee as above have been considered and after careful consideration, I am of the considered view and have therefore reasons to believe that income to the extent of Rs.30,44,500/- Rs. 100,00,000/- & Rs.53,98,000/-being investment from undisclosed, sources' chargeable

SMT. SATVIR KAUR W/O SH. SHINDER SINGH,FEROZEPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

cash deposit in the bank account of the assessee amounting to Rs. 60,00,000/- and time deposit of Rs. 30,00,000 during the year under consideration.” The Ld. AO during the course of re-assessment proceedings had verified all the details pertaining to the case of the assessee. Hence, it is evident that the Ld. AO has passed

SHRI ONKAR SINGH ,HOSHIARPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3, HOSHIARPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee ITA No

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

cash deposits in his bank account. The assessee’s submission was that he had received monetary consideration out of sale of land. 9. During the appellate proceedings, the appellant has not filed any computation of capital gains

SHRI ONKAR SINGH,HOSHIARPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3, HOSHIARPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee ITA No

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

cash deposits in his bank account. The assessee’s submission was that he had received monetary consideration out of sale of land. 9. During the appellate proceedings, the appellant has not filed any computation of capital gains

BHUPENDRA FLOUR MILLS PVT LTD,BATHINDA vs. ITO, WARD 1(1), BATHINDA, BATHINDA

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of out above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Shri Udayandasgupta, Jm आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.54/Asr/2025 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) M/S Bhupendra Flour Mills Pvt Ltd. Ito Ward - 1(1) बनाम/ Railway Road Central Revenue Building Bhatinda, Punjab – 151001 Civil Lines, Bhatinda Vs. Punjab - 151001 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaccb-6192-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) - Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Farhat Khan (Cit) – Ld. Dr (Virtual) सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05-02-2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 20.02.2026 : आदेश / O R D E R

capital gains. (iv) A conjoint reading of Section 2(24), Section 2(28A), Section 4, Section 10(37), Section 14, Section 45(5), Section 56(2)(viii), Section 145B(1) and Section 194LA of the Act makes it abundantly clear that any income which arises or is deemed to arise or accrue in India is chargeable

SHRI RAM DAS,NAWANSHAHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NAWANSHAHAR

In the result, ground no. 1 and 2 are dismissed and Ground nos

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

deposit Rs.14,77,000/- which was related to sale of the property. The balance cash Rs.17,07,500/- was remained unexplained. The ld. AO added back the amounting to Rs.17,07,500/- that the total income of the assessee. The ld. AO computed the sale of the propertyas capital gain

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2 (2), MUKTSAR vs. AJAIB SINGH, VILLAGE BHARU

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Krinwant Sahay(Hybrid Hearing) I.T.A. No. 354/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-13

capital gains has been assessed as Rs.3,68,15,000/-, as per order u/s 143(3). 4. The matter was carried in appeal before the first appellate authority. The ld. CIT(A) NFAC, deleted the addition by holding as follows: “3. The Assessee is an individual and is an agriculturist. The Assessee and his family are earning agricultural income from

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

cash deposit in the bank account was also made. On this addition, penalty u/s 271(1)(c ) for concealment of particulars of income was imposed and confirmed by Worthy CIT(A) against which also we are in appeal before the Hon’ble Bench. Late Sh. Gurmail Singh v. Dy. CIT & Ors 6. It is a matter of record that

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

cash deposit in the bank account was also made. On this addition, penalty u/s 271(1)(c ) for concealment of particulars of income was imposed and confirmed by Worthy CIT(A) against which also we are in appeal before the Hon’ble Bench. Late Sh. Gurmail Singh v. Dy. CIT & Ors 6. It is a matter of record that

SH. ARASHPREET SINGH S/O. LATE SH. GURMAIL SINGH,MUKTSAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CERCLE- II, BATHINDA

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

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

cash deposit in the bank account was also made. On this addition, penalty u/s 271(1)(c ) for concealment of particulars of income was imposed and confirmed by Worthy CIT(A) against which also we are in appeal before the Hon’ble Bench. Late Sh. Gurmail Singh v. Dy. CIT & Ors 6. It is a matter of record that

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

cash deposit in the bank account was also made. On this addition, penalty u/s 271(1)(c ) for concealment of particulars of income was imposed and confirmed by Worthy CIT(A) against which also we are in appeal before the Hon’ble Bench. Late Sh. Gurmail Singh v. Dy. CIT & Ors 6. It is a matter of record that

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

cash deposit in the bank account was also made. On this addition, penalty u/s 271(1)(c ) for concealment of particulars of income was imposed and confirmed by Worthy CIT(A) against which also we are in appeal before the Hon’ble Bench. Late Sh. Gurmail Singh v. Dy. CIT & Ors 6. It is a matter of record that

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

cash deposit in the bank account was also made. On this addition, penalty u/s 271(1)(c ) for concealment of particulars of income was imposed and confirmed by Worthy CIT(A) against which also we are in appeal before the Hon’ble Bench. Late Sh. Gurmail Singh v. Dy. CIT & Ors 6. It is a matter of record that

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

cash deposit in the bank account was also made. On this addition, penalty u/s 271(1)(c ) for concealment of particulars of income was imposed and confirmed by Worthy CIT(A) against which also we are in appeal before the Hon’ble Bench. Late Sh. Gurmail Singh v. Dy. CIT & Ors 6. It is a matter of record that

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

cash deposit in the bank account was also made. On this addition, penalty u/s 271(1)(c ) for concealment of particulars of income was imposed and confirmed by Worthy CIT(A) against which also we are in appeal before the Hon’ble Bench. Late Sh. Gurmail Singh v. Dy. CIT & Ors 6. It is a matter of record that

SH. ARASHPREET 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

cash deposit in the bank account was also made. On this addition, penalty u/s 271(1)(c ) for concealment of particulars of income was imposed and confirmed by Worthy CIT(A) against which also we are in appeal before the Hon’ble Bench. Late Sh. Gurmail Singh v. Dy. CIT & Ors 6. It is a matter of record that

SH. ARASHPREET 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

cash deposit in the bank account was also made. On this addition, penalty u/s 271(1)(c ) for concealment of particulars of income was imposed and confirmed by Worthy CIT(A) against which also we are in appeal before the Hon’ble Bench. Late Sh. Gurmail Singh v. Dy. CIT & Ors 6. It is a matter of record that