SHRIMATI SUMAN SBHARWAL,JALANDHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, JALANDHAR

In the result, all the captioned three appeals of the assessee are

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

search and seizure from residence of Assessee—CIT(A) deleted addition made by AO on account of undisclosed income by holding that seized documents were dumb in nature—Held, High Court in case of CIT Jalandhar vs. Atam Valves (P) Ltd. held that when loose papers does not relate to certain payment during relevant period in question, then in absence

SHRI SUSHEEL SABHARWAL,JALANDHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JALANDHAR

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No. 682/Asr/2019 Assessment Year: 2013-14

Capital Gain from sale of property, and restricting cost of improvement based on rough paper without appreciating the facts of the case and submission of the assessee. Therefore, we decided to hear both the appeals together and disposed of by this common order for brevity. We have chosen to take I.T.A. No. 683/Asr/2019, Assessment Year: 2013-14 in Case

SHRI RAKESH SABHARWAL,JALANDHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JALANDHAR

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No. 682/Asr/2019 Assessment Year: 2013-14

Capital Gain from sale of property, and restricting cost of improvement based on rough paper without appreciating the facts of the case and submission of the assessee. Therefore, we decided to hear both the appeals together and disposed of by this common order for brevity. We have chosen to take I.T.A. No. 683/Asr/2019, Assessment Year: 2013-14 in Case

SH. DIDAR SINGH S/O SH. PREM SINGH,KAPURTHALA vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KAPURTHALA

In the result, the assessee succeeds

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N.K.Choudhryita No.542(Asr)/2016 Assessment Year:2008-09

search and seizures and survey operations, no attempt should be made to obtain confession as to the undisclosed income. Any action on the contrary shall be viewed adversely. It was further cautioned that in respect of pending assessment proceedings also, the assessing officers should rely upon the evidences/materials gathered during the course of search/survey operations or thereafter while framing

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

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

seizure under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act was conducted at the premises of M/s Godwin Group of Cases on 09.09.2010. During the course of search, certain documents pertaining to Assesse were found and the said documents were passed on to the Assessing Officer of the Assesse.On the basis of the information and after recording the satisfaction note

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

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

seizure under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act was conducted at the premises of M/s Godwin Group of Cases on 09.09.2010. During the course of search, certain documents pertaining to Assesse were found and the said documents were passed on to the Assessing Officer of the Assesse.On the basis of the information and after recording the satisfaction note

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL CIRCLE), JAMMU vs. ANITA KAPAHI, JAMMU

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed being devoid of merits

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Krinwant Sahay

search and seizure action u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was conducted on 14.03.2019. The assessee is engaged in construction business and is stated to be one of the directors and shareholder of Jammu Hotels Pvt. Ltd. and Future Housing Infra Pvt. Ltd., respectively and the return of income was filed on 31.01.2020, declaring total income 3 I.T.A

THE DY. COMMISSIONER INCOME-TAX, JAMMU vs. M/S. HORIZON BUILDCON PVT. LTD,, JAMMU

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue in I

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

seizure of MOU wherein purchase consideration had been recorded as 11.05 Crore. The said MOU is unsigned by either of the parties to the agreement and therefore cannot be said to be of any evidentiary value to hold the either of the parties to stated consideration of 11.05 acre. However it does give a starting point to the Assessing Officer

THE DY. COMMISSIONER INCOME-TAX, JAMMU vs. M/S. HORIZON BUILDCON PVT. LTD,, JAMMU

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue in I

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

seizure of MOU wherein purchase consideration had been recorded as 11.05 Crore. The said MOU is unsigned by either of the parties to the agreement and therefore cannot be said to be of any evidentiary value to hold the either of the parties to stated consideration of 11.05 acre. However it does give a starting point to the Assessing Officer

THE DY. COMMISSIONER INCOME-TAX, JAMMU vs. M/S. HORIZON BUILDCON PVT. LTD,, JAMMU

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue in I

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

seizure of MOU wherein purchase consideration had been recorded as 11.05 Crore. The said MOU is unsigned by either of the parties to the agreement and therefore cannot be said to be of any evidentiary value to hold the either of the parties to stated consideration of 11.05 acre. However it does give a starting point to the Assessing Officer

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

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, FARIDKOT, BSNL BUILDING vs. M/S VOHRA SOLVEX PVT. LTD, SADIQ ROAD

In the result, C.O. filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Krinwant Sahay

search and seizure operations of group concerns of assessee, Assessing Officer on basis of statement made by a director of assessee opined that assessee-company siphoned off cash by issuing cheques against bagus capital expenses debited in accounts of assessee-company Accordingly, he made an addition on account of bogus purchases which was confirmed by Commissioner (Appeals) However, Tribunal