INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2 (1), JAMMU vs. SHRI MOHD ASLAM BAGGAR, JAMMU

In the result, the appeal of the department is dismissed

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

d) such income has arisen from the compensation or consideration for such transfer received by such assessee on or after the 1st day of April, 2004 This fact is also borne out from the assessment order that compensation has been received by the assessee on or after 1st April, 2004." 11 ITO v. Mohd. Aslam Baggar

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

D-Mat statement etc. and there is nothing to pinpoint anything against the assessees., High court held that where assessee earned LTCG on sale of shares and AO denied said claim and made additions under section 68 on ground that assessee invested in shares of penny stock companies which provided bogus LTCG, since assessee failed to establish genuineness of rise

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

D-Mat statement etc. and there is nothing to pinpoint anything against the assessees., High court held that where assessee earned LTCG on sale of shares and AO denied said claim and made additions under section 68 on ground that assessee invested in shares of penny stock companies which provided bogus LTCG, since assessee failed to establish genuineness of rise

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

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

d) ignoring the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pr. CIT Vs. Kusum Health Care Pvt. Ltd., wherein it has been held that when Assessee has already factored in the impact of the receivables on the working capital and thereby on its 8 I.T.A. Nos. 477 & CO 32/Asr/2015 & Ors Asstt

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

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

d) ignoring the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pr. CIT Vs. Kusum Health Care Pvt. Ltd., wherein it has been held that when Assessee has already factored in the impact of the receivables on the working capital and thereby on its 8 I.T.A. Nos. 477 & CO 32/Asr/2015 & Ors Asstt

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

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

d) ignoring the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pr. CIT Vs. Kusum Health Care Pvt. Ltd., wherein it has been held that when Assessee has already factored in the impact of the receivables on the working capital and thereby on its 8 I.T.A. Nos. 477 & CO 32/Asr/2015 & Ors Asstt

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

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

d) ignoring the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pr. CIT Vs. Kusum Health Care Pvt. Ltd., wherein it has been held that when Assessee has already factored in the impact of the receivables on the working capital and thereby on its 8 I.T.A. Nos. 477 & CO 32/Asr/2015 & Ors Asstt

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

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

d) ignoring the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pr. CIT Vs. Kusum Health Care Pvt. Ltd., wherein it has been held that when Assessee has already factored in the impact of the receivables on the working capital and thereby on its 8 I.T.A. Nos. 477 & CO 32/Asr/2015 & Ors Asstt

BRODAWAYS OVERSEAS LIMITED,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR

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

d) ignoring the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pr. CIT Vs. Kusum Health Care Pvt. Ltd., wherein it has been held that when Assessee has already factored in the impact of the receivables on the working capital and thereby on its 8 I.T.A. Nos. 477 & CO 32/Asr/2015 & Ors Asstt

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

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

d) ignoring the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pr. CIT Vs. Kusum Health Care Pvt. Ltd., wherein it has been held that when Assessee has already factored in the impact of the receivables on the working capital and thereby on its 8 I.T.A. Nos. 477 & CO 32/Asr/2015 & Ors Asstt

ESTATE OF SH. JAGIR SINGH BHULLAR,AMRITSAR. vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, TARN TARAN

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

Bench: Shri N.K. Choudhry, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.306/Asr/2014 & 591/Asr/2015 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Estate Of Sh. Jagir Singh Bhullar Vs. Income Tax Officer, Through S. Jasbir—Singh Ward-1(3), Bhullar, Tarn Taran, E-250 Ranjit Avenue, Amritsar, Punjab. Punjab.

D E R Per Dr. A.L. Saini: The captioned appeals filed by the Assessee and Revenue, pertaining to assessment year 2007-08, are directed against the separate orders passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Amritsar in appeal no. 249/IT//10-11 and in appeal no. 161/2014-15,which in turn arise out of an assessment order and Penalty order passed

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, TARN TARAN vs. ESTATE OF LATE SH. JAGIR SINGH BHULLAR, TARN TARAN

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

Bench: Shri N.K. Choudhry, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.306/Asr/2014 & 591/Asr/2015 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Estate Of Sh. Jagir Singh Bhullar Vs. Income Tax Officer, Through S. Jasbir—Singh Ward-1(3), Bhullar, Tarn Taran, E-250 Ranjit Avenue, Amritsar, Punjab. Punjab.

D E R Per Dr. A.L. Saini: The captioned appeals filed by the Assessee and Revenue, pertaining to assessment year 2007-08, are directed against the separate orders passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Amritsar in appeal no. 249/IT//10-11 and in appeal no. 161/2014-15,which in turn arise out of an assessment order and Penalty order passed

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

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

D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) 1. Aforesaid appeal by assessee for Assessment Year (AY) 2017- 18 arises out of an order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Gurgaon [CIT(A)] dated 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

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

1 kilometer on either side of Mohali Kakar upto distance of 6 kilometers from Municipal limit on that road falls within the definition of capital asset. (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

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. 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

D. C. I. T., (Decd) Thro L/H Naresh Puri, Circle, Pathankot Purian Mohalla, Pathankot [PAN: AIFPP 5367A] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sh. J. S. Bhasin (Adv.) Respondent by: Sh. Alok Kumar CIT-DR Date of Hearing: 17.12.2019 Date of Pronouncement: 19.12.2019 ORDER Per O. P. Meena, AM: This appeal by the Assessee is filed against the order of learned Commissioner

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

gains of business” as against “income from house property” and consequential claim of depredation under section 32 of the Act, being supported by various decisions of the High Courts could not have been termed as erroneous. 9. Without prejudice to the above, the PCIT failed to appreciate that business expenditure as claimed by the Appellant for the purposes of carrying

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

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

1. The Ld. CIT(A) erred on facts & law in confirming the action of the AO of assessing the income at Rs.3,87,73,310/- + Agriculture income at Rs. 11,56,169/- vide order u/s 143(3)1147 dated 20.12.2017. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred on facts & law in confirming the validity of the proceedings u/s 1471148 because