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

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

153A of the Income Tax Act. 3.2. Notice under Section 153C was issued to the Assesse on 28.10.2013 calling upon the Assesse to file the return of income for the assessment year 2010-11. In pursuant to the notice the return of income was filed by the Assesse through AR and it was submitted that the return were filed

M/S RAMAN KUMAR AGGARWAL,GURDASPUR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER .OF. INCOME. TAX , AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

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

153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act. As per the revenue, the assessee sold the share of M/s Kappac Pharma Ltd. during impugned assessment year amount to Rs. 1,18,79,150/-. The revenue has declared the entire transaction as the sham transaction and bogus during search. The revenue identified various company stock i.e. a stock having very low price

SMT. DEEPTI AGGARWAL,GURDAS PUR vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

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

153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act. As per the revenue, the assessee sold the share of M/s Kappac Pharma Ltd. during impugned assessment year amount to Rs. 1,18,79,150/-. The revenue has declared the entire transaction as the sham transaction and bogus during search. The revenue identified various company stock i.e. a stock having very low price

SH. RAMAN KUMAR AGGARWAL,GURDAS PUR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

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

153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act. As per the revenue, the assessee sold the share of M/s Kappac Pharma Ltd. during impugned assessment year amount to Rs. 1,18,79,150/-. The revenue has declared the entire transaction as the sham transaction and bogus during search. The revenue identified various company stock i.e. a stock having very low price

SH.GAURAV AGGARWAL,GURDAS PUR vs. DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

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

153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act. As per the revenue, the assessee sold the share of M/s Kappac Pharma Ltd. during impugned assessment year amount to Rs. 1,18,79,150/-. The revenue has declared the entire transaction as the sham transaction and bogus during search. The revenue identified various company stock i.e. a stock having very low price

SHRI SALIL BHATIA,AMRITSAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeal is allowed

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

153A, no addition could be made without having any incriminating documents found during the course of search/requisition. The learned counsel contended that in the present case, there were no incriminating documents found during action under section 132A, of the income tax act, 1961. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO received certain information from the investigation wing, and consequently

SHRI SIMERDEEP SINGH,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Udayan Das Gupta, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No. 260/Asr/2022 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessmentyear: 2016-17) Shri Simerdeep Singh Dcit बनाम/ Vs. H. No. 833 Urban Estate Phase-I Central Circle-1 Jalandhar- 144001. Jalandhar. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Abrps-8245-F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/Appellant By : S/Shri J. S. Bhasin (Advocate)& A. P. Singh (Ca) –Ld.Ars ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondentby : Ms. Vandana Vijay Mohite (Cit) – Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 23-04-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 06-06-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

gains were recomputed by adopting sale consideration of Rs.155 Lacs. After deducting indexed cost of acquisition, Long-Term capital loss was worked out to be Rs.9.65 Lacs which was not allowed to be carried forward since the original return was filed belatedly. Finally, the assessment was framed rejecting various contentions of the assessee, on this issue. Appellate Proceedings

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

section 147/148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on the ground that assessment should have been framed u/s 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 when documents seized did not belong solely to Sh. Charan Singh Urf Gurcharan Singh. And that Sh. Charan Singh Urf Gurcharan Singh was just party to the land sale/purchase transaction, being owner of the land

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

section 147/148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on the ground that assessment should have been framed u/s 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 when documents seized did not belong solely to Sh. Charan Singh Urf Gurcharan Singh. And that Sh. Charan Singh Urf Gurcharan Singh was just party to the land sale/purchase transaction, being owner of the land

GURU NANAK MILK PRODUCTS ,FEROZEPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR

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

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

153A of the Act and the appeals of the assessees are allowed. 7. In the result, In ITA No. 86/Asr/2017, ITA 320 to 326/Asr/2017, 276/Asr/2019 & 277/Asr/2019 ITA 583 to 585/Asr/2019 ITA 151/Asr/2021, ITA 183/Asr/2021 and ITA 41 to 43/Asr/2022 are allowed.” 7.1 It is mentioned in written submission that the assessee is doing the milk product so, the land