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

gains came to their notice (Para 8 to 10). The aspect of discharge of onus of the assessee by filing documentary evidences, is dealt with at pars 25 to 88 of the order, holding that the burden in the said eases where the facts fanciful rise in shares in a short span of time and thereafter steep fall, all unsupported

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

gains came to their notice (Para 8 to 10). The aspect of discharge of onus of the assessee by filing documentary evidences, is dealt with at pars 25 to 88 of the order, holding that the burden in the said eases where the facts fanciful rise in shares in a short span of time and thereafter steep fall, all unsupported

ATC LOGISTICAL SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED ,DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, AMRITSAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee ITA No

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

capital expenditure33 or personal expenses of the assessee), laid out or expended wholly and exclusively33 for the purposes of the business33 or profession shall be allowed in computing the income chargeable under the head "Profits and gains of business or profession". 34[35[Explanation 1.]—For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that any expenditure incurred

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 of Rs. 26,62,987/-. Thereafter, the assessee revised the ITR on 27.05.2017 showing total income at Rs.3,39,360/- under the head income from other sources. 1.2 The assessee claimed the above stated amount of Rs.27,96,629/- i.e., Compensation of Rs. 21,51,253/- and Solatium @ 30% of Rs.6,45,376/- in the revised return

M/S CITI PLAZA,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , WARD 3(1), JALANDHAR

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

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

iii) and the notice was served to the assessee on 06.03.2014. The assessee filed the return alongwith objection filed before the ld. AO against the jurisdiction for issuance of notice u/s 148 which is itself time barred as per section 149(1) (b) of the Act. The notice is supposed to within 31.3.2013 but it was served

MR RUDER MANI WALIA,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2 (3), JALANDHAR

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

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No.257/Asr/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18

gains is that of the LIC maturity proceeds only. 6.2) Tax treatment of “any sum received under a Life Insurance Policy”: It is important to note that section 10(10D) and section 194DA deals with “any sum received under a Life Insurance Policy” and “Payment in respect of Life Insurance Policy” respectively. Incomes not included in total income. 10

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

iii) of the IT Act 1961. (v) The appellant craves leave to add or amend any ground of appeal before the appeal is finally heard or disposed off.” 4. Brief facts emerging from record are that the assessee is an agriculturist and is about 92 years old, and his source of income is only from agricultural activities carried

THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, MUKTSAR vs. M/S. MAKKAR COTTON MILLS,, MUKTSAR

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No.504/Asr/2014 Assessment Year: 2006-07

iii) The appellant craves leave to add or amend any ground of appeal before the appeal is finally heard or disposed of.” I.T.A. No.504/Asr/2014 3 Assessment Year: 2006-07 3. Brief fact of the case is that the assessee is a partnership firm sold the property for Rs.50 lacs which include land and building for Rs.30 lacs and machinery Rs.20

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

iii) The grievance related to addition of commission u/s 69C which was paid by the assessee during the year amount to Rs.4,57,332,318/-. The matter was taken for adjudication accordingly. Ground No. 1 4. Ground No. 1 is general in nature. Ground No. 2 5. The ld. AR for the assessee, Mr Sudhir Sehgal, filed a written submission

SMT. DHANWANTI DEVI (DECEASED),JAMMU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMMU

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees bearing ITA Nos

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

10 time and thus could not devote time for cultivation of land. The land was shown as agricultural as situated beyond 8 KM from committee area. The revenue authorities treated the land as non-agricultural and computed capital gains arising from sale of such land taking the land as capital asset. It was held that the tax authorities below were

SH. SUNIL GUPTA,JAMMU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMMU

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees bearing ITA Nos

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

10 time and thus could not devote time for cultivation of land. The land was shown as agricultural as situated beyond 8 KM from committee area. The revenue authorities treated the land as non-agricultural and computed capital gains arising from sale of such land taking the land as capital asset. It was held that the tax authorities below were

SMT. ANURADHA MAHAJAN,,JAMMU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMMU

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees bearing ITA Nos

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

10 time and thus could not devote time for cultivation of land. The land was shown as agricultural as situated beyond 8 KM from committee area. The revenue authorities treated the land as non-agricultural and computed capital gains arising from sale of such land taking the land as capital asset. It was held that the tax authorities below were

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

10,47,11,318/- as against claimed by the assessee in respect of expenditure of Rs 77,65,67,171/-. Hence, deduction u/s 35AD of the Act has been claimed by the assessee wrongly. 6. As per the provisions of section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, if the Assessing Officer has reasons to believe that any income

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

10,47,11,318/- as against claimed by the assessee in respect of expenditure of Rs 77,65,67,171/-. Hence, deduction u/s 35AD of the Act has been claimed by the assessee wrongly. 6. As per the provisions of section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, if the Assessing Officer has reasons to believe that any income

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR vs. M/S BROADWAY OVERSEAS LTD., JALANDHAR

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

10 I.T.A. Nos. 477 & CO 32/Asr/2015 & Ors Asstt. CIT v. Broadways Overseas Ltd. & Ors Grounds of appeal in CO No. 17/Asr/2016 “1. That Ld. CIT(A) ought to have held that reference made without demonstrating as to why it was necessary and expedient to do so is bad in law. 2. That Ld. CIT(A) ought to have held that

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR vs. M/S BROADWAY OVERSEAS LTD., JALANDHAR

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

10 I.T.A. Nos. 477 & CO 32/Asr/2015 & Ors Asstt. CIT v. Broadways Overseas Ltd. & Ors Grounds of appeal in CO No. 17/Asr/2016 “1. That Ld. CIT(A) ought to have held that reference made without demonstrating as to why it was necessary and expedient to do so is bad in law. 2. That Ld. CIT(A) ought to have held that

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR vs. M/S BROADWAY OVERSEAS LTD., JALANDHAR

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

10 I.T.A. Nos. 477 & CO 32/Asr/2015 & Ors Asstt. CIT v. Broadways Overseas Ltd. & Ors Grounds of appeal in CO No. 17/Asr/2016 “1. That Ld. CIT(A) ought to have held that reference made without demonstrating as to why it was necessary and expedient to do so is bad in law. 2. That Ld. CIT(A) ought to have held that

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR vs. M/S BROADWAYS OVERSEAS LTD, JALANDHAR

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

10 I.T.A. Nos. 477 & CO 32/Asr/2015 & Ors Asstt. CIT v. Broadways Overseas Ltd. & Ors Grounds of appeal in CO No. 17/Asr/2016 “1. That Ld. CIT(A) ought to have held that reference made without demonstrating as to why it was necessary and expedient to do so is bad in law. 2. That Ld. CIT(A) ought to have held that