SH. GURJINDER SINGH,AMRITSAR vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1, AMRITSAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

capital gain and transaction relating to investments—Observation of the CIT that the AO had arrived at his finding without conducting an enquiry was erroneous—Tribunal was justified in coming to the conclusion that recourse to the powers under s. 263 was not warranted” CIT V Munjal Casting 303 ITR 23(2008) (P&H) “Revision—Validity—AO taking a possible

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

Capital Gain, exemption u/s 10(36) of the Act, deduction u/s 57 of the Act and unsecured loans and the assessees furnished all the relevant documents which were examined by the AO who has taken a possible view. Therefore, it is our considered view that there was a due application of mind on the part

MAX FINANCIAL SERVICE LIMITED ,NAWANSHAHR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is therefore partly allowed

Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue. 263.(1) The [Principal Commissioner or] Commissioner may call for and examine the record of any proceeding under this Act, and if he considers that any order passed therein by the Assessing] Officer is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, he, may, after giving the assessee

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

gain and d education claimed u/s 54D along with documents. Please explain as to why the deduction claimed u/s 54D may not be disallowed and added to your income. Please furnish your reply with evidence. Keeping in view the above facts, your case is fixed for hearing on 18.11.2016 and you are requested to attend my office with your complete

SMT. PARMINDER KAUR BRAR,KOTKAPURA vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1, AMRITSAR

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

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

revision order is liable to be quashed. 7. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law. the learned Pr. CIT, Amritsar lias not given the reasonable opportunity to defend the case, to the assessee. Even the reply filed is not considered. So, revisional order is liable to be quashed. 8. That any other relief

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AMRITSAR. vs. SH. JAIMAL SINGH, L/H. SH. PREM CHAND,, TARN TARAN

In the result, the appeal bearing ITA No

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

revision u/s 263. 5. The Learned CIT A has erred in law and facts and circumstances of the case by not declaring reassessment u/s 147 made on the basis of standalone AIR Information bad in law. 6. The Learned CIT A has erred in law and facts and circumstances of the case by upholding reassessment u/s 147 on the ground

M/S ACTIVE TOOLS (P). LIMITED,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -II, JALANDHAR

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

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

SH. GURBACHAN SINGH BRAR,MOGA vs. ITO, WARD - 1,, MOGA

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

gain instead of long term capital loss shown by the assessee and accepted by the AO. The AO has not enquired even from the assessee, the reasons for selling the property at a rate which would yield long term capital loss as a prudent person would not sell property, the property which would yield. But, even

SH. SANTOKH SINGH BRAR,MOGA vs. ITO, WARD - 2,, MOGA

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

gain instead of long term capital loss shown by the assessee and accepted by the AO. The AO has not enquired even from the assessee, the reasons for selling the property at a rate which would yield long term capital loss as a prudent person would not sell property, the property which would yield. But, even

SH. JASWINDER SINGH,BATHINDA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,, BATHINDA

Bench: Sh. Ravish Sood & Dr. M. L. Meena

revised by him u/s 263 of the Act. For the sake of clarity the relevant extract of the ‘SCN’, dated 19/26.08.2015 is culled out as under : “The case was selected for scrutiny through CASS to examine the source of cash deposits made by the assessee in savings bank accounts. As per copy of bank account maintained with SBOP, Pilibanga

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

gains from these REC/ESCs in India contain to right to transfer it. These credits have no other value. It must be emphasized if there is no carrying on of the business there are no RECs/ESCs The question of savings to emission arises only in to I.T.A. No.193/Asr/2022 23 Assessment Year: 2018-19 course of the business. The REC/ESCs