SH. AMRIT LAL BATRA, PROP.,SRINAGAR vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, JAMMU

Appeals of the appellant are disposed off in the terms indicated as above

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

142 taxmann.com 529 (Kol Trib) vide order dated 27.09.2022 while referring the Judgment of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of “Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Rewashanker A. Kothari”, (Supra) held that “Mere high volume of transactions and utilization of borrowings in purchase of shares could not alter assessee's consistent treatment of shares purchased on delivery basis

SHRI AMRIT LAL BATRA,SRINAGAR vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX-3, SRINAGAR

Appeals of the appellant are disposed off in the terms indicated as above

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

142 taxmann.com 529 (Kol Trib) vide order dated 27.09.2022 while referring the Judgment of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of “Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Rewashanker A. Kothari”, (Supra) held that “Mere high volume of transactions and utilization of borrowings in purchase of shares could not alter assessee's consistent treatment of shares purchased on delivery basis

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

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

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

142(1) of the Act on 14.11.2011 along with questionnaire. 6.1 The AO being not satisfied with the submission of the appellant assesse, has completed the assessment vide order under section 143(3)/144C of the Act dated 02.02.2012 at an assessed income of Rs.4,20,04,589/-. 7. The assesse being aggrieved with the Assessment Order, went in appeal

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

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

142(1) of the Act on 14.11.2011 along with questionnaire. 6.1 The AO being not satisfied with the submission of the appellant assesse, has completed the assessment vide order under section 143(3)/144C of the Act dated 02.02.2012 at an assessed income of Rs.4,20,04,589/-. 7. The assesse being aggrieved with the Assessment Order, went in appeal

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

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

142(1) of the Act on 14.11.2011 along with questionnaire. 6.1 The AO being not satisfied with the submission of the appellant assesse, has completed the assessment vide order under section 143(3)/144C of the Act dated 02.02.2012 at an assessed income of Rs.4,20,04,589/-. 7. The assesse being aggrieved with the Assessment Order, went in appeal

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

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

142(1) of the Act on 14.11.2011 along with questionnaire. 6.1 The AO being not satisfied with the submission of the appellant assesse, has completed the assessment vide order under section 143(3)/144C of the Act dated 02.02.2012 at an assessed income of Rs.4,20,04,589/-. 7. The assesse being aggrieved with the Assessment Order, went in appeal

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

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

142(1) of the Act on 14.11.2011 along with questionnaire. 6.1 The AO being not satisfied with the submission of the appellant assesse, has completed the assessment vide order under section 143(3)/144C of the Act dated 02.02.2012 at an assessed income of Rs.4,20,04,589/-. 7. The assesse being aggrieved with the Assessment Order, went in appeal

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

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

142(1) of the Act on 14.11.2011 along with questionnaire. 6.1 The AO being not satisfied with the submission of the appellant assesse, has completed the assessment vide order under section 143(3)/144C of the Act dated 02.02.2012 at an assessed income of Rs.4,20,04,589/-. 7. The assesse being aggrieved with the Assessment Order, went in appeal

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

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

142(1) of the Act on 14.11.2011 along with questionnaire. 6.1 The AO being not satisfied with the submission of the appellant assesse, has completed the assessment vide order under section 143(3)/144C of the Act dated 02.02.2012 at an assessed income of Rs.4,20,04,589/-. 7. The assesse being aggrieved with the Assessment Order, went in appeal

M/S SHANKAR RICE & GENERAL MILLS ,MOGA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE, MOGA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

capital gains, nor is it income from "other sources" because the provisions of sections 69.69A, 69B and 69C meat unexplained investment, unexplained money, bullion, etc., and unexplained expenditure as deemed income where the nature and source of investment, acquisition or expenditure, as the case may be, have not been explained or satisfactorily explained, Therefore, in these cases, the source

SHRI ONKAR SINGH ,HOSHIARPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3, HOSHIARPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee ITA No

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

capital gains tax. The appellant never objected to the revenue authorities about escapement of stamp duty on sale of land by him. The purchaser has not confirmed the excess price alleged by received in cash by the appellant. During appeal proceedings, no documents were annexed in support of the written submission by the appellant so as to support its contentions

SHRI ONKAR SINGH,HOSHIARPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3, HOSHIARPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee ITA No

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

capital gains tax. The appellant never objected to the revenue authorities about escapement of stamp duty on sale of land by him. The purchaser has not confirmed the excess price alleged by received in cash by the appellant. During appeal proceedings, no documents were annexed in support of the written submission by the appellant so as to support its contentions

SHRI AMRITPAL SINGH (PROP),JALANDHAR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- 1, JALANDHAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee ITA No

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

142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 07th November, 2016 (Refer Page No.(s)23, 27 & 28 of APB).It was after examination of assessee’s claim that the assessing officer proceeded to pass an order under section 143(3) dated 20th December, 2016(Refer Page No.(s)32 to 36 of APB). Resultantly, the assessee prays that

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -2 (1), AMRITSAR vs. MS. SAVITA BANSAL, THROUGH LEGAL HEIR SH. PARVEEN KUMAR BANSAL, AMRITSAR

In the result, the revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Udayan Das Gupta, Jm 1. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 240/Asr/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Income Tax Officer Smt. Savita Bansal Ward-2(1) बनाम/ (Through L/H Shri Parveen Kumar Bansal) Amritsar 143001 H.No. 272, Green Avenue Vs. Amritsar-143001. "थायीलेखासं./Pan. Abmpb-3594-K (Assessee) / Acnpk-4131-D (Lh) (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 2. Cross Objection No. 1/Amritsar/2024 (In Ita No. 240/Asr/2023) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Smt. Savita Bansal Income Tax Officer बनाम/ (Through L/H Shri Parveen Kumar Bansal) Ward-2(1) H.No. 272, Green Avenue Amritsar 143001 Vs. Amritsar-143001. "थायीलेखासं./Pan. Abmpb-3594-K (Assessee) / Acnpk-4131-D (Lh) (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/Appellant By : Dr Rakesh Gupta (Advocate) –Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri B. Srinivas Kumar (Cit) – Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10-07-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21-08-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () Aforesaid Appeal By Revenue For Assessment Year (Ay) 2016- 1. 17 Arises Out Of An Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax

capital gains. Accordingly, a show-cause notice was issued. The Ld. AO observed that there was abnormal increase in the price of the scrips which could be possible only if the prices were rigged. In the absence of any rebuttal as forthcoming from the assessee, the LTCG so earned for Rs.482.86 Lacs & claimed exempt u/s 10(38) was considered

M/S BLUE CITY TOWNSHIP & COLONIZERS,AMRITSAR. vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,, AMRITSAR.

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

capital gain arise, scrutiny is necessary. The information available on record in the case of assessee as above have been considered and after careful consideration, I am of the considered view and have therefore reasons to believe that income to the extent of Rs.30,44,500/- Rs. 100,00,000/- & Rs.53,98,000/-being investment from undisclosed, sources' chargeable

SH. GURJINDER SINGH,AMRITSAR vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1, AMRITSAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

capital gain and transaction relating to investments—Observation of the CIT that the AO had arrived at his finding without conducting an enquiry was erroneous—Tribunal was justified in coming to the conclusion that recourse to the powers under s. 263 was not warranted” CIT V Munjal Casting 303 ITR 23(2008) (P&H) “Revision—Validity—AO taking a possible

SMT. SATVIR KAUR W/O SH. SHINDER SINGH,FEROZEPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

Capital Gain, exemption u/s 10(36) of the Act, deduction u/s 57 of the Act and unsecured loans and the assessees furnished all the relevant documents which were examined by the AO who has taken a possible view. Therefore, it is our considered view that there was a due application of mind on the part