SMT. SATYAWATI MARWAHA THROUGH LEGAL HEIR SH, CHANDER SHEIKHAR MARWAHA,JALANDHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal for Asstt

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

144, by the AO central circle – 1, Jalandhar, dated 29/03/2022, where the abovementioned bank account of the assessee held with “ Capital Small Finance Bank” has been examined and some additions has been made on account of unexplained credit entries in such bank , but there is no adverse findings in respect of the investment of Rs. 18 lakhs made

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

THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, MUKTSAR vs. M/S. MAKKAR COTTON MILLS,, MUKTSAR

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No.504/Asr/2014 Assessment Year: 2006-07

capital gain as per provisions of Section 48 of Income tax Act, 1961 by taking the deemed value of consideration of property, as per registered deeds, as done by the AO in the assessment made in the case of persons/partners who sold the land on behalf of M/s Makkar Cotton Mills, Bariwala. (iii) The appellant craves leave

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

144 after taking into account all the material on record by the AO to the best of his judgment and knowledgewith an addition of Rs. 18,82,729/- on account of disallowance of expenses claimed as cost of improvement and expenditure on transfer relating to Short Term Capital Gain. 5. In appeal, the learned CIT (A) has confirmed the addition

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

HARBANS SINGH,P.O. KHERA DONA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BSNL EXCHANGE COLONY

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

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

144 620 Kapurthala [PAN: GIZPS 7573H] (Respondent) (Appellant) Appellant by : Sh. Rajnish Mohindra, Adv. : Respondent by Sh. Charan Dass, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing : 22.09.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 26.09.2025 ORDER Per Udayan Dasgupta, J.M.: This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. Addl./JCIT(A)-7, Mumbai dated 26.02.2024 passed u/s 250 of the Income

M/S. JAMMU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,,JAMMU ( J&K) vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMMU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of the department is dismissed

Bench: Sh. N. S. Saini & Sh. N. K. Choudhryita No. 498/Asr./2013 : Asstt. Year : 2005-06 Jammu Development Authority, Vs Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vikas Bhawan, Rail Head Tax, Circle-I, Complex, Jammu, J & K Jammu (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadfj7335A Ita No. 494/Asr./2013 : Asstt. Year : 2005-06 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vs Jammu Development Authority, Tax, Circle-I, Vikas Bhawan, Rail Head Jammu Complex, Jammu, J & K (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcp1720E Assessee By : Shri. R. K. Gupta, Ca & Shri. Vasu Gupta, Ca Revenue By : Shri. M. P. Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing :21.02.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.03.2019 Order Per N. S. Saini: These Are The Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee & Revenue Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Dated 06.05.2013, Jammu.

144 of the Act under this head premium received as under:- Total premium received upto 31.03.2005 Rs.11,78,36,327/- Total premium received upto 31.03.2004 Rs.7,44,81,571/- Premium received during the year Rs.4,33,54,756/- In view of the discussions held above whole of this amount of Rs.4,33,54,756/- is treated as income

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMMU vs. M/S. JAMMU DEVELPMENT AUTHORITY,, JAMMU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of the department is dismissed

Bench: Sh. N. S. Saini & Sh. N. K. Choudhryita No. 498/Asr./2013 : Asstt. Year : 2005-06 Jammu Development Authority, Vs Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vikas Bhawan, Rail Head Tax, Circle-I, Complex, Jammu, J & K Jammu (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadfj7335A Ita No. 494/Asr./2013 : Asstt. Year : 2005-06 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vs Jammu Development Authority, Tax, Circle-I, Vikas Bhawan, Rail Head Jammu Complex, Jammu, J & K (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcp1720E Assessee By : Shri. R. K. Gupta, Ca & Shri. Vasu Gupta, Ca Revenue By : Shri. M. P. Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing :21.02.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.03.2019 Order Per N. S. Saini: These Are The Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee & Revenue Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Dated 06.05.2013, Jammu.

144 of the Act under this head premium received as under:- Total premium received upto 31.03.2005 Rs.11,78,36,327/- Total premium received upto 31.03.2004 Rs.7,44,81,571/- Premium received during the year Rs.4,33,54,756/- In view of the discussions held above whole of this amount of Rs.4,33,54,756/- is treated as income

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

capital gain tax only when the same was so received, and not otherwise. Accordingly, the CIT(A) in terms of his aforesaid observations partly allowed the appeal. 5. The assessee being aggrieved with the order of the CIT(A) has carried the matter in appeal before us. At the very outset of the hearing of the appeal, it was submitted

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

capital gain tax only when the same was so received, and not otherwise. Accordingly, the CIT(A) in terms of his aforesaid observations partly allowed the appeal. 5. The assessee being aggrieved with the order of the CIT(A) has carried the matter in appeal before us. At the very outset of the hearing of the appeal, it was submitted

D.C.I.T, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,, JALANDHAR vs. SH. CHARAN SINGH, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Hon’Ble & Sh. Ravish Soodita No.241/Asr./2017 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vs Sh. Ranjit Singh, Tax, Central Circle-I, Jalandhar S/O Sh. Mehnga Singh, Vpo-Beas Pind, District-Jalandhar (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Ctjps4497P Co No.23/Asr./2017 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Sh. Ranjit Singh, Vs Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, S/O Sh. Mehnga Singh, Vpo- Central Circle-I, Jalandhar Beas Pind, District-Jalandhar (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Ctjps4497P Ita No.242/Asr./2017 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vs Sh. Charan Singh Urf Gurcharan Tax, Central Circle-I, Jalandhar Singh, S/O Sh. Dhanna Singh, Vpo- Sarmastpur, Jalandhar (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Fifps1985G Co No.25/Asr./2017 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Sh. Charan Singh Urf Gurcharan Vs Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Singh, S/O Sh. Dhanna Singh, Central Circle-I, Jalandhar Vpo-Sarmastpur, Jalandhar (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Fifps1985G Assessee By : Sh. S. S. Kalra, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Bhawani Shankar, Dr Date Of Hearing : 07.01.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.01.2019

capital gain income of Rs.1,74,01,064/-. Since, there was no compliance by the assessee on the notices issued by the AO, the assessment was framed u/s 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) by making the addition of Rs.1,74,01,064/-. 6. Being aggrieved the assessee carried the matter

DY . C.I.T, CENTRAL CIRCLE -1,, JALANDHAR vs. SH. RANJIT SINGH , JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Hon’Ble & Sh. Ravish Soodita No.241/Asr./2017 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vs Sh. Ranjit Singh, Tax, Central Circle-I, Jalandhar S/O Sh. Mehnga Singh, Vpo-Beas Pind, District-Jalandhar (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Ctjps4497P Co No.23/Asr./2017 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Sh. Ranjit Singh, Vs Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, S/O Sh. Mehnga Singh, Vpo- Central Circle-I, Jalandhar Beas Pind, District-Jalandhar (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Ctjps4497P Ita No.242/Asr./2017 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vs Sh. Charan Singh Urf Gurcharan Tax, Central Circle-I, Jalandhar Singh, S/O Sh. Dhanna Singh, Vpo- Sarmastpur, Jalandhar (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Fifps1985G Co No.25/Asr./2017 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Sh. Charan Singh Urf Gurcharan Vs Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Singh, S/O Sh. Dhanna Singh, Central Circle-I, Jalandhar Vpo-Sarmastpur, Jalandhar (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Fifps1985G Assessee By : Sh. S. S. Kalra, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Bhawani Shankar, Dr Date Of Hearing : 07.01.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.01.2019

capital gain income of Rs.1,74,01,064/-. Since, there was no compliance by the assessee on the notices issued by the AO, the assessment was framed u/s 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) by making the addition of Rs.1,74,01,064/-. 6. Being aggrieved the assessee carried the matter

M/S G G OILS & FATS PVT.LTD ,BATHINDA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BATHINDA

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi. T. A. No. 508/Asr/2017 Assessment Year: 2014-15

144 (on 16.10.2013), which is in respect of credits (dated 29.07.2013 & 31.07.2013) toward insurance payment. The same, though liable to be construed as dividend u/s. 2(22)(e), do not form part of the qualifying sum of Rs. 3266.12 lacs for us to dilate thereon. Continuing further, the entire credit of Rs. 3266.12 lacs stands repaid from 13/11/2013 to 29/11/2013

SHRI. NITIN PAL SINGH ,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(3), JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue bearing ITA No

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

144 of the Act by invoking provisions of section 145(3) of the Act as against best judgment assessment framed u/s 143(3) ofthe Act without invoking provisions of section 145(3) of the Act. Conclusion drawn by learned CIT(A) that “there is no infirmity in the proceedings adopted by AssessingOfficer and assessment order passed by Assessing Officer

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(5), JALANDHAR vs. SHRI NITIN PAL SINGH , JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue bearing ITA No

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

144 of the Act by invoking provisions of section 145(3) of the Act as against best judgment assessment framed u/s 143(3) ofthe Act without invoking provisions of section 145(3) of the Act. Conclusion drawn by learned CIT(A) that “there is no infirmity in the proceedings adopted by AssessingOfficer and assessment order passed by Assessing Officer

SHRI GURBINDER SINGH MAHAL,AMRITSAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-IV ( 2), AMRITSAR

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

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

section 250(4)] through banks instead of disposing off the appeal for non-appearance without adjudicating on merits. 7. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, or alter any of the grounds of appeal.” I.T.A. No.22/Asr/2023 4 Assessment Year: 2014-15 2. The case was called for hearing, first, the ld. DR filed an adjournment petition before the bench

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