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

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. GULZAR SINGH GURBACHAN SINGH,DISTT.BATHINDA vs. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, BATHINDA

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A. Nos. 146&147/Asr/2014 Assessment Years: 2007-08&2008-09

capital account balances in view of section 184(5) of the Act, which reads as under: ‘CHAPTER XVI A. – Assessment of firms Assessment as a firm. 184. (1) A firm shall be assessed as a firm ……. (2) to (4) …… (5) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other provision of this Act, where, in respect of any assessment year, there

M/S. GULZAR SINGH GURBACHAN SINGH,DISTT.BATHINDA vs. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, BATHINDA

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A. Nos. 146&147/Asr/2014 Assessment Years: 2007-08&2008-09

capital account balances in view of section 184(5) of the Act, which reads as under: ‘CHAPTER XVI A. – Assessment of firms Assessment as a firm. 184. (1) A firm shall be assessed as a firm ……. (2) to (4) …… (5) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other provision of this Act, where, in respect of any assessment year, there

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

142(1) too remained uncomplied with. Observing, that the assessee despite having been afforded sufficient opportunities had failed to comply with the notices that were issued to him, the A.O therein proceeded with the assessment on an ex-parte basis u/s 144 of the Act, i.e, on the basis of the material/information available on record. 3. Observing, that the assessee

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

142(1) too remained uncomplied with. Observing, that the assessee despite having been afforded sufficient opportunities had failed to comply with the notices that were issued to him, the A.O therein proceeded with the assessment on an ex-parte basis u/s 144 of the Act, i.e, on the basis of the material/information available on record. 3. Observing, that the assessee

M/S ACTIVE TOOLS (P). LIMITED,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -II, JALANDHAR

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

142 CTR (SC) 122 ……………………. c) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. BHIMA BROS. HIGH COURT OF KERALA (1995) 123 CTR (Ker) 253 : (1995) 214 ITR 302 (Ker) ………………. That without prejudice to our submission that provisions of section 154/155 of the Act are not attracted in this case since there is no glaring mistake apparent from records, there is no obvious

INCOME TAX OFFICER, INCOME TAX OFFICE vs. VIKAS MEHRA, THE MALL

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed being devoid of

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

142(1) and therefore, the appellant was issued summons us 131 for personal appearance on 14.11.2019 along with bank account and detailed capital account explaining the increase in large share capital during the year. In response Sh. Jatinder Nagpal, Advocate filed online reply along with capital account, copy of registered deed in respect of immovable property and documentary evidence relating

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

MR.VISHAL BATRA,`LUDHIANA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

1. That the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and facts of the Case by sustaining an addition amounting to Rs. 18,82,729/- under the head “Income from Short Term Capital Gains”. 2. That, out of the above amount of Rs. 18,82,729/-, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred

MESERS EMBROCIA FARMS PVT LTD,PATHANKOT vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6, PATHANKOT

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is (in ITA No

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A. Nos. 561/Asr/2018 & 284/Asr/2017 Assessment Year: 2006-07

capital gain could not be separately computed. Qua the first issue, the ld. CIT(A) held that the issue being now raised was not the subject matter of appeal and, consequently, not adjudicated u/s. 250 in the first instance. As regards the second ground, the same raised a contentious issue, i.e., which was debatable and, thus, outside the purview

M/S EMBROCIA FARMS PVT LTD. ,PATHANKOT vs. D.C.I.T, CIRCLE-6,, PATHANKOT

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is (in ITA No

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A. Nos. 561/Asr/2018 & 284/Asr/2017 Assessment Year: 2006-07

capital gain could not be separately computed. Qua the first issue, the ld. CIT(A) held that the issue being now raised was not the subject matter of appeal and, consequently, not adjudicated u/s. 250 in the first instance. As regards the second ground, the same raised a contentious issue, i.e., which was debatable and, thus, outside the purview

SH. GURBACHAN SINGH BRAR,MOGA vs. ITO, WARD - 1,, MOGA

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

section 142(1) of the Act has asked you to file the details of immovable properties acquired by you. On 16.03.2015, the Assessing Officer confronted you with the information available in his possession i.e. receipt-cum-agreement to sell dated 28.03.2009 and showed his intention to treat sum of Rs 5. 75 Crore (11.25 ITA 204 to 207/Amr/2017 9 crore

SH. SANTOKH SINGH BRAR,MOGA vs. ITO, WARD - 2,, MOGA

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

section 142(1) of the Act has asked you to file the details of immovable properties acquired by you. On 16.03.2015, the Assessing Officer confronted you with the information available in his possession i.e. receipt-cum-agreement to sell dated 28.03.2009 and showed his intention to treat sum of Rs 5. 75 Crore (11.25 ITA 204 to 207/Amr/2017 9 crore

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