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

II M/s. Active Tools P. Ltd. 79, New Udyog Nagar Fazilpur Randhawa Masanda, Jhalandhar Jhalandhar (Punjab) PAN:AAECA6485E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Sh. Surindra Mahajan, C.A. Respondent by Smt. Jatindra Kaur, D.R. Date of Hearing 14.07.2021 16.08.2021 Date of Pronouncement ORDER Per Laliet Kumar, J.M. 1. That the present appeal was filed by the Assessee,feeling aggrieved by the order

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

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

II. Section 40A(3), read with section 263, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and rule 6DD of Income-tax Rules, 1962 - Business disallowance - Cash payment exceeding prescribed limit (Rule 6DD) - Assessment year 2013-14 - Assessee-company was engaged in business of manufacturing of dairy products Assessee filed return and Assessing Officer passed assessment order after making certain additions - Principal

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

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

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

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

THE KOT RAM DASS COOP. THIRFT & CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2 (4), JALANDHAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee ITA No

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No.86/Asr/2021 Assessment Year: 2017-18

142(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 issued on 07.12.2019, the assessee was show caused to explain which subsection of section 80P is applicable in its case under which it has claimed deduction under chapter VI-A and also to explain as to why interest I.T.A. No.86/Asr/2021 5 Assessment Year: 2017-18 earned on FDRs should not be treated

THE DHAMAI COOPERATIVE AGRICULTURE SERVICE SOCIETY LIMITED,HOSHIARPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , HOSHIARPUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the appellant are allowed and the order(s) of the Kerala High Court and other authorities to the contrary are set aside

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No.273/Asr/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18

142(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 issued on 07.12.2019, the assessee was show caused to explain which subsection of section 80P is applicable in its case under which it has claimed deduction under chapter VI-A and also to explain as to why interest earned on FDRs I.T.A. No.273/Asr/2023 6 Assessment Year: 2017-18 should not be treated

THE DHAMAI COOPERATIVE AGRICULTURE SERVICE SOCIETY LIMITED,HOSHIARPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD, HOSHIARPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee ITA No

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No.238/Asr/2023 Assessment Year: 2020-21

142(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 issued on 07.12.2019, the assessee was show caused to explain which subsection of section 80P is applicable in its case under which it has claimed deduction under chapter VI-A and also to explain as to why interest earned on FDRs should not be treated as income from other sources instead

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

142(1). Copy of the same is enclosed at Page 16 to 17. 3 During the course of assessment proceedings the ld.AO fixed the case for hearing at very short intervals and large number of queries were raised in addition to the above questionnaire which were all duly replied by the appellant along with the necessary details and explanations

SH. JASWINDER SINGH,BATHINDA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,, BATHINDA

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

ii) out of the balance sale consideration received at the time of registration of the sale deeds. However, the Pr. CIT, observed, that the consideration that had exchanged hands between the parties, i.e, as per the registered sale deeds was Rs. 11.71 lacs (Rs. 4.5 lac (+) Rs. 7.21 lac) as against Rs. 1.21 crore mentioned in agreement. It was further

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

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

142 of compilation of judgments]. 8. Decision of ITAT Amritsar Bench Amritsar in the case of Sant Ishwar Shiksha Samiti vs. CIT(E) Chandigarh in ITA No. 670(ASR)/2015 order dated 30/08/2017 relating to AY 2015-16. 9. Decision of Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Pinegrove International Charitable Trust and Ors vs Union of India

SH. LALIT DEEWAN,JAMMU vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-2, JAMMU

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi. T. A. No. 453/Asr/2017 Assessment Year: 2013-14

section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' hereinafter) vide order dated 22.01.2016 for Assessment Year (AY) 2013-14. 2. The facts of the case in-so-far as are relevant are that the assessee sold an immovable property, being a plot of land (at Gattha Sohana, Haryana) during the 2 Lalit Dewan v. Dy. CIT relevant year

MESERS AMARNARTH AGGARWAL BUILDERS PVT. LTD.,BATHINDA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-1, BATHINDA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

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

section 36(2)(i) no deduction of bad 4 Amarnath Aggarwal B. P Ltd v. Dy.CIT doubtful debts. The assessee’s contention is that the assessee wanted to purchase the land in anticipation for financial gain in Panchkula and paid the amount accordingly. The assessee denied that he never claimed this amount

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, JAMMU vs. M/S. CONTINENTAL CONSTRUCTION CO,, JAMMU ( J&K)

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed as well as the appeal filed the Revenue Department is dismissed and Cross Objection also stands disposed off

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N.K.Choudhryita No.38(Asr)/2013 Assessment Year:2009-10

142(1) required the assessee to support its’ claim qua the said loan with any material/ evidence. This does not appear to be the case as there is no reference thereto by him either in the assessment order or in the remand report. The addition under the circumstances could only be on the basis of some ITA Nos.38 & 27/Asr/2013

M/S. CONTINENTAL CONSTRUCTION CO.,,JAMMU vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (HQRS), JAMMU

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed as well as the appeal filed the Revenue Department is dismissed and Cross Objection also stands disposed off

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N.K.Choudhryita No.38(Asr)/2013 Assessment Year:2009-10

142(1) required the assessee to support its’ claim qua the said loan with any material/ evidence. This does not appear to be the case as there is no reference thereto by him either in the assessment order or in the remand report. The addition under the circumstances could only be on the basis of some ITA Nos.38 & 27/Asr/2013