INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2 (1), JAMMU vs. SHRI MOHD ASLAM BAGGAR, JAMMU

In the result, the appeal of the department is dismissed

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

1) sub-clause (i) of section 10(37) of the Income tax Act, 1961 mentioning that the land which is situated in any area referred to in item (a) or item (b) of section 2(14)(iii) is exempt from charging to capital gain. (2) under sub-clause (ii) of section 10(37) of the Income tax Act, 1961 mentioning

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

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 by the assessee from the said

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

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 by the assessee from the said

M/S. SATIA INDUSTRIES LIMITED,MUKTSAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, BATHINDA

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

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

17 taxmann.com 186 (Orissa)- Held“Section 139 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Return of income - Revised return - Assessment year 2006-07 - Whether an assessee can revise his return of income by way of filing a revised statement of income after filing original return other than by way of filing revised return as contemplated under section 139(5) - Held

MR RUDER MANI WALIA,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2 (3), JALANDHAR

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

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No.257/Asr/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18

17-18. The ITR is verified and following entries were noticed. The relevant column in the ITR under the head “Schedule CG: Capital Gains : B-Long Term Capital Gains” at point 7a, 7b, and 7c, is as under: Full value of consideration Rs.47,40,561/- Less: Deduction u/s 48: Cost of acquisition without indexation Rs.42,99,363/- Long Term Capital

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

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee is allowed

gain\n(LTCG) to claim exemption under section 10 (38) was based on a proposal given by\nAssessing Officer, exercise of jurisdiction under section 263 was not justified - Held, yes\n[Paras 8 and 9] [In favour of assessee]\n27.\nThe Ld AR further argued on applicability of clause(a) of explanation 2 to\nsection 263 and relied upon

SATIA INDUSTRIES LIMITED,MUKTSAR, PUNJAB vs. DCIT, ACIT CIRCLE 1, BATHINDA

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Udayan Das Gupta & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 527/Asr/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2020-21

17. It was explained by the Authorized Representative (AR) that the total cost of Cogeneration Unit-1 for energy production is undisputed at Rs. 55,93,77,363). During the hearing, it was submitted that the TPO erred in taking the cost as Rs. 527-Asr-2024 Satia Industries, Muktsar 33 35,68,26,820 by applying

SH. ARASHPREET SINGH S/O. LATE SH. GURMAIL SINGH,MUKTSAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CERCLE- II, BATHINDA

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

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

iv. CIT vs. M/s Goyanka Lime and Chemical ITA No. 82 of 2012 (MP). “3.3 I have given careful consideration to the contentions of the appellant and to begin with non-service of notice has not been established by the appellant whereas in the assessment order specific date has been mentioned on which the notice was served. The Assessing Officer

LATE. SH. GURMAIL SINGH.S/O. LATE SH. LAL SINGH,SRI MUKTSAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -II, BATHINDA

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

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

iv. CIT vs. M/s Goyanka Lime and Chemical ITA No. 82 of 2012 (MP). “3.3 I have given careful consideration to the contentions of the appellant and to begin with non-service of notice has not been established by the appellant whereas in the assessment order specific date has been mentioned on which the notice was served. The Assessing Officer

LATE. SH. GURMAIL. SINGH. S/O. SH. LAL SINGH,SRI MUKATSAR vs. DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -II, BATHINDA

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

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

iv. CIT vs. M/s Goyanka Lime and Chemical ITA No. 82 of 2012 (MP). “3.3 I have given careful consideration to the contentions of the appellant and to begin with non-service of notice has not been established by the appellant whereas in the assessment order specific date has been mentioned on which the notice was served. The Assessing Officer

LATE. SH. GURMAIL SINGH S/O. SH. LAL SINGH,SRI MUKATSAR vs. DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -II, BATHINDA

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

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

iv. CIT vs. M/s Goyanka Lime and Chemical ITA No. 82 of 2012 (MP). “3.3 I have given careful consideration to the contentions of the appellant and to begin with non-service of notice has not been established by the appellant whereas in the assessment order specific date has been mentioned on which the notice was served. The Assessing Officer

SH. ARASHPREET SINGH S/O LATE SH. GURMAIL SINGH,SHRI MUKATSAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-II, BATHINDA

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

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

iv. CIT vs. M/s Goyanka Lime and Chemical ITA No. 82 of 2012 (MP). “3.3 I have given careful consideration to the contentions of the appellant and to begin with non-service of notice has not been established by the appellant whereas in the assessment order specific date has been mentioned on which the notice was served. The Assessing Officer

SH. ARSPREET SINGH . S/O. LATE. SH. GURMAIL SINGH ,MUKTSAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE .II, BATHINDA

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

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

iv. CIT vs. M/s Goyanka Lime and Chemical ITA No. 82 of 2012 (MP). “3.3 I have given careful consideration to the contentions of the appellant and to begin with non-service of notice has not been established by the appellant whereas in the assessment order specific date has been mentioned on which the notice was served. The Assessing Officer

SH. ARASHPREET SINGH S/O. LATE SH. GURMAIL SINGH,MUKTSAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-II, BATHINDA

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

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

iv. CIT vs. M/s Goyanka Lime and Chemical ITA No. 82 of 2012 (MP). “3.3 I have given careful consideration to the contentions of the appellant and to begin with non-service of notice has not been established by the appellant whereas in the assessment order specific date has been mentioned on which the notice was served. The Assessing Officer

SH. ARASHPREET SINGH. S/O.LATE.SH. GURMAIL SINGH,MUKTSAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX .CIRCLE-II, BATHINDA

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

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

iv. CIT vs. M/s Goyanka Lime and Chemical ITA No. 82 of 2012 (MP). “3.3 I have given careful consideration to the contentions of the appellant and to begin with non-service of notice has not been established by the appellant whereas in the assessment order specific date has been mentioned on which the notice was served. The Assessing Officer

LATE. SH. GUMAIL SINGH . S/O. SH. LAL SINGH,MUKTSAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -II, BATHINDA

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

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

iv. CIT vs. M/s Goyanka Lime and Chemical ITA No. 82 of 2012 (MP). “3.3 I have given careful consideration to the contentions of the appellant and to begin with non-service of notice has not been established by the appellant whereas in the assessment order specific date has been mentioned on which the notice was served. The Assessing Officer

LATE. SH. GURMAIL. SINGH S/O. SH. LAL SINGH,SHRI MUKAT SAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF 9INCOME TAX. CIRCLE -II, BATHINDA

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

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

iv. CIT vs. M/s Goyanka Lime and Chemical ITA No. 82 of 2012 (MP). “3.3 I have given careful consideration to the contentions of the appellant and to begin with non-service of notice has not been established by the appellant whereas in the assessment order specific date has been mentioned on which the notice was served. The Assessing Officer

M/S SHANKAR RICE & GENERAL MILLS ,MOGA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE, MOGA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

capital gains, nor is it income from "other sources" because the provisions of sections 69.69A, 69B and 69C meat unexplained investment, unexplained money, bullion, etc., and unexplained expenditure as deemed income where the nature and source of investment, acquisition or expenditure, as the case may be, have not been explained or satisfactorily explained, Therefore, in these cases, the source

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

capital gain or loss. These share of M/s Kappac Pharma Ltd. resembled I.T.A. Nos.32 to 35/Asr/2019 15 A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16 the character of Penny Stocks which has been discussed and investigated at length by Investigation Wing, Kolkata. The Kappac Pharma Ltd. even figures in the Appraisal report of the Investigation Wing, Kolkata giving detail of Bogus LTCG through