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 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

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

iii) read with sec. 40(b) allowed to the partners on their 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

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

iii) read with sec. 40(b) allowed to the partners on their 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

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

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

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

gain (LTCG) to claim exemption under section 10 (38) was based on a proposal given by Assessing Officer, exercise of jurisdiction under section 263 was not justified - Held, yes [Paras 8 and 9] [In favour of assessee] 27. The Ld AR further argued on applicability of clause(a) of explanation 2 to section 263 and relied upon the Judgment

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

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

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

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

SHRI RAMESH KUMAR ,BATHINDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(3), BATHINDA

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

section 55(2)(b) and 55A of Income Tax Act, respectively before calculating the Capital Gain and order of A.O require to be set-a-side. 10. That the Id.CIT(A) has erred in law, as well as ,on facts by holding the land in question as individual land by ignoring land revenue record and further ignored that neither such

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

section 263 be quashed, annulled and cancelled in the interest of justice, equity and fair-play. GOA:- 14:- Vide ground of appeal No.14, it is humbly prayed that in the event of any adversity arising out of the brief written submission besides judgement set, I.T.A. No. 425/Asr/2019 19 Assessment Year: 2014-15 assessee may kindly be afforded an effective opportunity

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