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

capital gain treated as income from undisclosed sources, without considering the facts of the case and without observing the principles of natural justice

SHRI RANJEET SINGH,BATHINDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1 (1), BATHINDA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

Capital Gains’ u/s 45(5)(a) of the Act and added to the income of the appellant. Ranjeet Singhv. ITO & Ors. 6. The Ld. CIT (A) has confirmed the addition by observing that Notification dated 31.12.2014 was issued by Ministry of Law & Justice wherein sub section (3) of section 105 of the RFCTLAAR Act was substituted by providing that

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

capital gain on sale of shares as assessee’s own unaccounted funds and denying the exemption u/s 10(38) of the Act. 2 That the ld.CIT(A)-5, Ludhiana has erred in law and on facts in confirming the findings of the AO that the transactions of purchase and sale of shares by appellant are not genuine but bogus, stage

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

capital gain on sale of shares as assessee’s own unaccounted funds and denying the exemption u/s 10(38) of the Act. 2 That the ld.CIT(A)-5, Ludhiana has erred in law and on facts in confirming the findings of the AO that the transactions of purchase and sale of shares by appellant are not genuine but bogus, stage

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

capital gain on sale of shares as assessee’s own unaccounted funds and denying the exemption u/s 10(38) of the Act. 2 That the ld.CIT(A)-5, Ludhiana has erred in law and on facts in confirming the findings of the AO that the transactions of purchase and sale of shares by appellant are not genuine but bogus, stage

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

capital gain on sale of shares as assessee’s own unaccounted funds and denying the exemption u/s 10(38) of the Act. 2 That the ld.CIT(A)-5, Ludhiana has erred in law and on facts in confirming the findings of the AO that the transactions of purchase and sale of shares by appellant are not genuine but bogus, stage

M/S. SATIA INDUSTRIES LIMITED,MUKTSAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, BATHINDA

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

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

justice as only one day time has been allowed to submit reply to the SCN and, in view, of the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Sona Builders the directions issued by the Dispute resolution panel for enhancement of income of Rs 4,57,32,318/- deserves to be set aside/quashed. 3.1. That the Dispute Resolution Panel

SHRI SUKHEV SINGH ,BATHINDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(2), BATHINDA

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

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

capital gains being claimed as 7 Sukhdev Singh v. ITO agricultural land etc. after considering the written submission of the assesse and granting sufficient opportunity of being heard. 7. Accordingly, in view of the principle of natural justice

M/S. WORLDWIDE FOURTUNE HOMES ,KATHUA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAMMU

In the result, appeal of the assessee ITA No

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

nature of addition is different. The assessing authority has considered the amount Rs. 10 lakh as capital gain but not cost of acquisition during time of assessment proceeding in the reason lack of documents. The ld. CIT(A) had converted the income assessed U/s 45 to section 69A. The appellate authority can change the view of assessing authority

INCOME TAX OFFICER, FEROZEPUR vs. MS.JATIN AGRO, FORT ROAD

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Physical Hearing) I.T.A. No. 103 & 104/Asr/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2017-18 Ito, Ward-3(1), Vs. M/S Jatin Agro Fort Road, Ferozepur. 152-P, Ferozepur. [Pan:-Aarpm5393F] (Appellant) (Respondent) Sh. Ashray Sarna, Ca Appellant By Respondent By Sh. Sunil Gautam, Cit. Dr

gain from the business within the meaning of section 28(1) of the Act , because in the instant case, the presence of business activity is totally absent. 7.1 The Ld. DR further submitted that in the instant case, PUNGRAIN has also treated the amount paid to the assessee in the nature of rent and has deducted TDS under the provisions

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1),FEROZEPUR, FEROZEPUR vs. MS.JATIN AGRO, FORT ROAD

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Physical Hearing) I.T.A. No. 103 & 104/Asr/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2017-18 Ito, Ward-3(1), Vs. M/S Jatin Agro Fort Road, Ferozepur. 152-P, Ferozepur. [Pan:-Aarpm5393F] (Appellant) (Respondent) Sh. Ashray Sarna, Ca Appellant By Respondent By Sh. Sunil Gautam, Cit. Dr

gain from the business within the meaning of section 28(1) of the Act , because in the instant case, the presence of business activity is totally absent. 7.1 The Ld. DR further submitted that in the instant case, PUNGRAIN has also treated the amount paid to the assessee in the nature of rent and has deducted TDS under the provisions

SMT. SATINDER KAUR,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2 (4), JALANDHAR

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

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No.136/Asr/2023 Assessment Year: 2009-10

capital gain. Aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) passed an order. The grievance of the assessee is that during passing the appeal order reasonable opportunity was denied for the assessee. The appeal order was passed by rejecting the ground of appeal of the assessee. Being aggrieved the assessee filed an appeal before

SHRI ARNESH KUMAR SHAKAR EX. MLA,HOSHIARPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD, DASUYA

In the result, appeal of the assessee ITA No

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

natural justice, deserves not to be sustained.” 4. Brief fact of the case is that the assessee has sold the ancestral property amount to Rs.18 lacs and Rs.15 lacs. The payments were received on dated 24.02.2007 and 30.04.2007. The total amount of Rs.33 lacs was received on account of transfer of property. The assessee invested this amount in capital gain

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

nature. Ground of appeals 2 to 12 are against the addition of Rs.44,00,000/- on account of cash deposit in the bank account. As per information available with the Department that the assessee had maintained a joint saving bank account No.452102010041331 with Union Bank of India, Chugatti Branch, Jalandhar. During the financial year 2006-07 relevant

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

nature. Ground of appeals 2 to 12 are against the addition of Rs.44,00,000/- on account of cash deposit in the bank account. As per information available with the Department that the assessee had maintained a joint saving bank account No.452102010041331 with Union Bank of India, Chugatti Branch, Jalandhar. During the financial year 2006-07 relevant

SHRI AMRITPAL SINGH (PROP),JALANDHAR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- 1, JALANDHAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee ITA No

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

natural justice or without application of mind.” emphasis supplied) The assessee further relies upon the pronouncement of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Anil Kumar Sharma reported in 335 ITR 83 wherein it was settled in the following terms:- 7. In view of the above discussion, it is apparent that the Tribunal arrived

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

capital gains, nor is it income from "other sources" because the provisions of sections 69.69A, 69B and 69C meat unexplained investment, unexplained money, bullion, etc., and unexplained expenditure as deemed income where the nature and source of investment, acquisition or expenditure, as the case may be, have not been explained or satisfactorily explained, Therefore, in these cases, the source

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

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee is allowed

gain\n(LTCG) to claim exemption under section 10 (38) was based on a proposal given by\nAssessing Officer, exercise of jurisdiction under section 263 was not justified - Held, yes\n[Paras 8 and 9] [In favour of assessee]\n27.\nThe Ld AR further argued on applicability of clause(a) of explanation 2 to\nsection 263 and relied upon

SHRI NIRVAIR SINGH,AMRITSAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-4(3), AMRITSAR

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

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

natural justice. 10. That the order passed by the Ld. Assessing Officer and further upheld by worthy CIT (Appeals) is illegal and invalid since the Ld. Assessing Officer erred on law and facts in making addition on grounds other than reasons recorded for opening assessment u/s 148 as the case was opened for reasons recorded evasion of capital gain