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

SHRI TARLOCHAN SINGH,MANSA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(4), MANSA

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

iii) Decision of Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Text Hundred India (P.) Ltd. [2011] 197 Taxman 128 (Delhi) in which it has been held that “……….It is well-settled that the procedure is handmade of justice and justice should not be allowed to be choked only because of some inadvertent error or omission on the part

SHRI NAROTAM SINGH,MANSA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -1(4), MANSA

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

iii) Decision of Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Text Hundred India (P.) Ltd. [2011] 197 Taxman 128 (Delhi) in which it has been held that “……….It is well-settled that the procedure is handmade of justice and justice should not be allowed to be choked only because of some inadvertent error or omission on the part

SMT. INDERMEET BAINS W/O SH. D.S. BAINS,BATHINDA vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , BATHINDA

The appeal of the assessee is disposed of in the term indicated as above

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

iii) The land in question is located near Chandigarh Airport. In the assessment order passed in compliance of order u/s 263 on 30.12.2016, these issues do not seem to have examined as to whether the land is question is capital asset within the meaning of section 2(14) of the Income Tax Act and no findings on the same have

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

25-10-2016whilerecording the finding that the case of the Ranjeet Singhv. ITO & Ors. assessee is covered by order of the Agra Bench of the Hon’ble ITAT in the case of Jagdish Arora in which it has been held that the benefit of section 96 of RFCTLARR Act, 2013 cannot be given to the appellant from Long Term

SH. RAGHUNATH SAHAI PURI(DECD),PATHANKOT vs. THE DEPTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PATHANKOT

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

Bench: Sh. N. K. Choudhry & Sh. O. P. Meenai.T.A. No. 633/Asr/2014 Assessment Year: 2007-08

25,000/- including the value of flat, be not charged to tax u/s 45 read with section 48 of the Act. 5. The assessee responded by stating that as per the contract, the assessee was supposed to get a built up flat having super area of 2250 sq. ft. apart from cash; as the sales consideration in the contract

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

10 Assessment Year: 2006-07 iii) That whether the ld.CIT(A) was competent, while deciding a case before him, to give direction to reopen a case for another year, not before him. 3. Rather than specifically addressing the above legal issues, the ld.CIT(A), in his impugned order, has taken a generic view that since the assessee had himself claimed

INDIAN TOOLS TECHNOLOGY CENTRE ,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFICER WARD II(1), JALANDHAR

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

25 of Companies Act, 1956 with the main object to establish a Common Facility Center (CPC) for use of hand tool manufactures by providing various facilities for manufacturing activities 3 like forging, heat treatment, packaging, finishing, testing etc. under one roof. The proposed project was approved by the Department of industrial Policy and Promotion (DIPP), Ministry of Commerce, Government

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

section 30 to 35 of the Act; (ii) Expenditure is of revenue in nature nto of capital in nature; (iii) Expenditure is not personal expenses of the assessee; 23 A.Y.2015-16 (iv) Expenditure has been laid down or expended wholly and exclusively for the purposes of business or profession of the assessee; (v) Expenditure has not been incurred for any purpose

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

Bench: Sh. Vikram Singh Yadav & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

25. It is a matter of record that proper enquiry was made by the AO and therefore, it cannot be stated that no enquiry was made by the AO. In this regard reliance is being placed upon the order of Delhi High Court in Geevee Enterprises v. Addl. CIT 99 ITR 375 (Del.)that order would be erroneous only when

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

25-11-2024 in the matter of an assessment framed by Ld. AO u/s 143(3) on 19-12-2019. In the assessment order, Ld. AO made twin additions of Rs.258.46 Lacs and Rs.233 Lacs which is subject matter of present appeal before us. Having heard rival submissions, the appeal is disposed-off as under. 2. The first addition

SHRI JASBIR SINGH ,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-I (2), JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Choudhry, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.426/Asr/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12)

25,00,000/- (Rs.3,46,00,000- Rs.1,21,00,000). 2 | P a g e Assessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Jasbir Singh. 4. Aggrieved by the stand so taken by the ld. AO, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld. CIT(A) who has dismissed the assessee’s technical ground of re- opening u/s 147/148

M/S STEP BY STEP JUNIOR SCHOOL SOCIETY,AMRITSAR. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), CHANDIGARH

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

25,000/- p.a. 18.06.2013 7683 sq. yard 40 years Rs. 80,000/- p.a. Financial statement reveals that an addition of Rs. 72,19,181/- has been done during F.Y. 2014- 15 under the head building (New) and no addition under this head has been done by the applicant since inception. Addition in the shape of building on leased premises when

SHRI BRIJINDERPAL SINGH BHULLAR,MOHALI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- 1 (3), BATHINDA

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

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

capital gain tax only when the same was so received, and not otherwise. Accordingly, the CIT(A) in terms of his aforesaid observations partly allowed the appeal. 5. The assessee being aggrieved with the order of the CIT(A) has carried the matter in appeal before us. At the very outset of the hearing of the appeal, it was submitted

SHRI BARJINDERPAL SINGH BHULLAR,MOHALI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- 1 (3), BATHINDA

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

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

capital gain tax only when the same was so received, and not otherwise. Accordingly, the CIT(A) in terms of his aforesaid observations partly allowed the appeal. 5. The assessee being aggrieved with the order of the CIT(A) has carried the matter in appeal before us. At the very outset of the hearing of the appeal, it was submitted

M/S G G OILS & FATS PVT.LTD ,BATHINDA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BATHINDA

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi. T. A. No. 508/Asr/2017 Assessment Year: 2014-15

gains’; to section 23A(1), providing an artificial dividend payout at a minimum of 60%, lest the shortfall therein be liable to super-tax, i.e., restraining the company from accumulating its’ profit beyond 40% to build up reserves or to provide for 25 G. G. Oils & Fats Pvt. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT capital expenditure

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

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

III”, in 28 I.T.A. Nos. 477 & CO 32/Asr/2015 & Ors Asstt. CIT v. Broadways Overseas Ltd. & Ors Civil Appeal No. 4822 of 2022 [@SLP (C) No.17539 of 2016] on the provisions of section 80IB, affirming their view earlier taken in the case of Liberty India 317 ITR 218 (SC): 225 CTR (SC) 233 on the claim of deduction u/s 80IB

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

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

III”, in 28 I.T.A. Nos. 477 & CO 32/Asr/2015 & Ors Asstt. CIT v. Broadways Overseas Ltd. & Ors Civil Appeal No. 4822 of 2022 [@SLP (C) No.17539 of 2016] on the provisions of section 80IB, affirming their view earlier taken in the case of Liberty India 317 ITR 218 (SC): 225 CTR (SC) 233 on the claim of deduction u/s 80IB