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

153 Taxmann.com 579 (SC) dismissed the SLP filed by revenue filed against the Hon’ble high 9 ITA No. 26/Asr/2024 Rama Mittal v. ITO court where adjudicating the matter on Section 69A, read with section 10(38), of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Unexplained moneys (Share dealings) - High Court by impugned order held that where Assessing Officer disallowed exemption claimed

SH. SUNIL GUPTA,JAMMU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMMU

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees bearing ITA Nos

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

CAPITAL GAINS NOT LEVIABLE- INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, ss 2(14), 45 8.1 The ld.AR for the assessee placed that the assessment of the deceased person is invalid and nullity. The ld. AO has made mistake not to consider the legal heir during proceeding of the assessment. The power of attorney holder Mr. Sunil Gupta was taken as legal heir

SMT. ANURADHA MAHAJAN,,JAMMU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMMU

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees bearing ITA Nos

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

CAPITAL GAINS NOT LEVIABLE- INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, ss 2(14), 45 8.1 The ld.AR for the assessee placed that the assessment of the deceased person is invalid and nullity. The ld. AO has made mistake not to consider the legal heir during proceeding of the assessment. The power of attorney holder Mr. Sunil Gupta was taken as legal heir

SMT. DHANWANTI DEVI (DECEASED),JAMMU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMMU

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees bearing ITA Nos

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

CAPITAL GAINS NOT LEVIABLE- INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, ss 2(14), 45 8.1 The ld.AR for the assessee placed that the assessment of the deceased person is invalid and nullity. The ld. AO has made mistake not to consider the legal heir during proceeding of the assessment. The power of attorney holder Mr. Sunil Gupta was taken as legal heir

SHRI JASBIR SINGH ,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-I (2), JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Choudhry, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.426/Asr/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12)

section 50C (2) of the IT Act. The AO is being directed to re-compute the quantum of long term capital gains on sale of property by taking the sale consideration at Rs.2,03,00,000 and workout the amount of capital gains accordingly.” 5. Aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before

SHRI AJAIB SINGH,BATHINDA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,, BATHINDA

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

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A. No. 78/Asr/2015 Assessment Year: 2007-08

gain had not arisen, which income is subject to tax on the basis of the accrual, i.e., irrespective of the non-receipt of the consideration. This is as once the income has accrued, which is only on the basis of transfer of the relevant capital asset, the only recourse in law in case of non-recovery is the enforcement

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

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

Capital Gains' as income of the previous year when the transfer took place, i.e., 1964. Therefore, the assessee was liable to pay additional tax on the income that escaped assessment.” 13. Per contra, the ld. Addl. CIT-DR submitted that it was a case of deemed escapement of income as per clause (b) to (Explanation

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1),FEROZEPUR, FEROZEPUR vs. MS.JATIN AGRO, FORT ROAD

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Physical Hearing) I.T.A. No. 103 & 104/Asr/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2017-18 Ito, Ward-3(1), Vs. M/S Jatin Agro Fort Road, Ferozepur. 152-P, Ferozepur. [Pan:-Aarpm5393F] (Appellant) (Respondent) Sh. Ashray Sarna, Ca Appellant By Respondent By Sh. Sunil Gautam, Cit. Dr

3. During the previous year under consideration, it had earned Rs.6, 18, 29,857/-as rental income le income from a source other than from a specified business as per section 35AD of the Act. But, the treatment of rental income received from godown given on rent to PUNGRAIN as normal business income is also not correct since, business

INCOME TAX OFFICER, FEROZEPUR vs. MS.JATIN AGRO, FORT ROAD

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Physical Hearing) I.T.A. No. 103 & 104/Asr/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2017-18 Ito, Ward-3(1), Vs. M/S Jatin Agro Fort Road, Ferozepur. 152-P, Ferozepur. [Pan:-Aarpm5393F] (Appellant) (Respondent) Sh. Ashray Sarna, Ca Appellant By Respondent By Sh. Sunil Gautam, Cit. Dr

3. During the previous year under consideration, it had earned Rs.6, 18, 29,857/-as rental income le income from a source other than from a specified business as per section 35AD of the Act. But, the treatment of rental income received from godown given on rent to PUNGRAIN as normal business income is also not correct since, business

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

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

SH. JASPAL SINGH S/O SH. SWARAN SINGH,AMRITSAR. vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,, AMRITSAR.

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

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A. No. 445/Asr/2016 Assessment Year: 2004-05

3). 7 Jaspal Singh v. ITO 4.2 As regards the aspect of the service, the same has already been examined by the ld. CIT(A), who found that the notices u/ss. 133(6) 148(1) and 142(1), addressed to ‘16 Chand Avenue, Amritsar’, as validly served in-as-much as it was not shown, as claimed

SH. VIJAY KUMAR AGGARWAL, PROP.,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Sh. N. S. Saini & Sh. N. K. Choudhryita No. 38/Asr./2017 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ita No. 77/Asr./2017 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13

capitalized Rs. 34,88,666 and debited Rs 1,26,79,130 in the P&L a/c. This amount was also not paid due to shortage of funds. The assessee-company however, preferred the request before 31st March, 1989, to the financial institutions to defer the payment of the concerned interest. The ICICI Ltd. agreed to defer the collection

SHRI VIJAY KUMAR AGGARWAL,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFICER,WARD II(4), JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Sh. N. S. Saini & Sh. N. K. Choudhryita No. 38/Asr./2017 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ita No. 77/Asr./2017 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13

capitalized Rs. 34,88,666 and debited Rs 1,26,79,130 in the P&L a/c. This amount was also not paid due to shortage of funds. The assessee-company however, preferred the request before 31st March, 1989, to the financial institutions to defer the payment of the concerned interest. The ICICI Ltd. agreed to defer the collection