SH.GAURAV AGGARWAL,GURDAS PUR vs. DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

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

140-150 times within a short span of period which is extremely unusual. The past records of the assessee for the preceding years show that the assessee has been hardly active in the stock market. This being the case, the assessee has entered into a sham transaction with the full knowledge of it, so as to convert unaccounted money into

M/S RAMAN KUMAR AGGARWAL,GURDASPUR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER .OF. INCOME. TAX , AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

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

140-150 times within a short span of period which is extremely unusual. The past records of the assessee for the preceding years show that the assessee has been hardly active in the stock market. This being the case, the assessee has entered into a sham transaction with the full knowledge of it, so as to convert unaccounted money into

SH. RAMAN KUMAR AGGARWAL,GURDAS PUR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

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

140-150 times within a short span of period which is extremely unusual. The past records of the assessee for the preceding years show that the assessee has been hardly active in the stock market. This being the case, the assessee has entered into a sham transaction with the full knowledge of it, so as to convert unaccounted money into

SHRI DEV BRAT SHARMA,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD 3 (1), JALANDHAR

Bench: Shri. N.K. Saini & Shri. Ravish Soodsh. Dev Brat Sharma, Income Tax Officer, 62, New Rajinder Nagar, Vs. Ward-3(1) Near New Court, Jalandhar. Jalandhar

140/-. The return of income filed by the assessee was processed as such under section 143(1) of the I.T. Act. Subsequently, the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny assessment under section 143(2). 3. During the course of assessment proceedings it was observed by the A.O that the assessee had during the year under consideration sold

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

140) "INCOME TAX: SLP dismissed against order of High Court that where Assessing Officer denied exemption claimed by assessee under section 10(38) on long-term capital gain

SHRI BILAS CHAND,BATHINDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD1(1), BATHINDA

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A. No. 399/Asr/2018 Assessment Year: 2016-17

sections, i.e., by mistake, and that he had revised his return accordingly on 17.7.2017 (refer para 5 of the assessment order). The said return, however, while retaining the claim for deduction u/s. 80C at Rs.1.50 lacs, altered that for deduction u/s. 80E to ‘Loss from house property’, at, though, the same sum of Rs.1,50,472, returning thus his income

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, AMRITSAR. vs. SH. SHIV RAJ SINGH BAWA, AMRITSAR.

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is allowed and the assessee’s CO, dismissed

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 407/Asr/2016 Assessment Year: 2012-13

gains of business or profession under sub-section (3) and this sub-section where a payment or aggregate of payments made to a person in a day, otherwise than by an account payee cheques drawn on a bank or account payee bank draft, exceeds twenty thousand rupees, in such cases and under such circumstances as may be prescribed, having regard