BHUPENDRA FLOUR MILLS PVT LTD,BATHINDA vs. ITO, WARD 1(1), BATHINDA, BATHINDA

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of out above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Shri Udayandasgupta, Jm आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.54/Asr/2025 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) M/S Bhupendra Flour Mills Pvt Ltd. Ito Ward - 1(1) बनाम/ Railway Road Central Revenue Building Bhatinda, Punjab – 151001 Civil Lines, Bhatinda Vs. Punjab - 151001 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaccb-6192-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) - Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Farhat Khan (Cit) – Ld. Dr (Virtual) सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05-02-2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 20.02.2026 : आदेश / O R D E R

D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) 1. Aforesaid appeal by assessee for Assessment Year (AY) 2017- 18 arises out of an order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Gurgaon [CIT(A)] dated 25-11-2024 in the matter of an assessment framed by Ld. AO u/s 143(3) on 19-12-2019. In the assessment order

THE DHAMAI COOPERATIVE AGRICULTURE SERVICE SOCIETY LIMITED,HOSHIARPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , HOSHIARPUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the appellant are allowed and the order(s) of the Kerala High Court and other authorities to the contrary are set aside

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No.273/Asr/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18

gains, was not immediately required by the assessee for lending money to the members, as there were no takers. Therefore, they had deposited the money in a bank so as to earn interest. The said interest income is attributable to carrying on the business of banking and therefore it is liable to be deducted in terms of Section

MAX FINANCIAL SERVICE LIMITED ,NAWANSHAHR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is therefore partly allowed

gains of business” as against “income from house property” and consequential claim of depredation under section 32 of the Act, being supported by various decisions of the High Courts could not have been termed as erroneous. 9. Without prejudice to the above, the PCIT failed to appreciate that business expenditure as claimed by the Appellant for the purposes of carrying

SMT. INDERMEET BAINS W/O SH. D.S. BAINS,BATHINDA vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , BATHINDA

The appeal of the assessee is disposed of in the term indicated as above

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

d) The intention of the purchaser of the land is not for agriculture purpose but the same was to earn profit from sale of land as evident from the facts of the case. (e) The land was situated is developed area s nearby A irocity and Airport. (f) The land was purchased by the assessee and the same

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

D-Mat statement etc. and there is nothing to pinpoint anything against the assessees., High court held that where assessee earned LTCG on sale of shares and AO denied said claim and made additions under section 68 on ground that assessee invested in shares of penny stock companies which provided bogus LTCG, since assessee failed to establish genuineness of rise

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

D-Mat statement etc. and there is nothing to pinpoint anything against the assessees., High court held that where assessee earned LTCG on sale of shares and AO denied said claim and made additions under section 68 on ground that assessee invested in shares of penny stock companies which provided bogus LTCG, since assessee failed to establish genuineness of rise

SHRI TARLOCHAN SINGH,MANSA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(4), MANSA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are allowed

d) By any other means of transmission of documents as provided by rules made by the Board in this behalf. The above said notice was served through the Notice Server of the Department which is one of the mean of transmission of documents as provided by the rules made by the Board. ii. The necessary satisfaction has also been recorded

SHRI NAROTAM SINGH,MANSA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -1(4), MANSA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are allowed

d) By any other means of transmission of documents as provided by rules made by the Board in this behalf. The above said notice was served through the Notice Server of the Department which is one of the mean of transmission of documents as provided by the rules made by the Board. ii. The necessary satisfaction has also been recorded

SHRI RANJEET SINGH,BATHINDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1 (1), BATHINDA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

capital gains of Rs. 26,62,987/-. Thereafter, the assessee revised the ITR on 27.05.2017 showing total income at Rs.3,39,360/- under the head income from other sources. 1.2 The assessee claimed the above stated amount of Rs.27,96,629/- i.e., Compensation of Rs. 21,51,253/- and Solatium @ 30% of Rs.6,45,376/- in the revised return

ATC LOGISTICAL SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED ,DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, AMRITSAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee ITA No

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

22,59,445/- was debited to P & L account under the head ‘Payments for gratuity’. Disallowance u/s 40A(7) was restricted to Rs. 19,52,569/- as an amount of Rs. 2,63,876/- was already added. 6.2 In the submission, the appellant has submitted that the decision of the CIT(A) confirming the similar addition made

DR. HARPRIT SINGH ,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Choudhry & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.संसंसंसं././././I.T.A No.195/Asr/2018 िनधा"रणवष"/A.Y.:2011-12 िनधा"रणवष" िनधा"रणवष" िनधा"रणवष" Dr. Harprit Singh, C/O M/S. Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Orthonova Hospital, Near Nari Income-Tax, Niketan, Nakoddar Road, Central Circle –Ii, Jalandhar Jalandhar(Pb) (Pb) Pan: Acmps 7237 F अपीलाथ"Appellant अपीलाथ" ""यथ"/Respondent ""यथ" अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" ""यथ" ""यथ"

D E R आदेश आदेश PER O. P. MEENA, ACCOUTANT MEMBER: 1. This appeal by the Assessee is directed against the order of learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals)-1, Jalandhar (in short “the CIT (A)”) dated 31.01.2018 pertaining to Assessment Year 2011- 12, which in turn has arisen from the assessment order passed under section 143 (3)/147

SH. RAJINDER KUMAR CHADHA,BEAS vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, AMRITSAR.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Choudhry & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.संसंसंसं././././I.T.A No.28/Asr/2017 िनधा"रणवष"/A.Y.:2003-04 िनधा"रणवष" िनधा"रणवष" िनधा"रणवष" Shri Rajinder Kumar Chadha, Vs. Income Tax Officer, K/105, Dera Baba Jaimal Singh, Ward-4(3) Amritsar Beas Pan:Abipc 5206 H अपीलाथ"Appellant अपीलाथ" ""यथ"/Respondent ""यथ" अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" ""यथ" ""यथ"

D E R आदेश आदेश PER O. P. MEENA, ACCOUTANT MEMBER: 1. This appeal by the Assessee is directed against the order of learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals)-2, Amritsar (in short “the CIT (A)”) dated 18.10.2016 pertaining to Assessment Year 2003- 04, which in turn has arisen from the assessment order passed under section 143 (3)read with

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

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

22. That before invoking the provisions of section 263, it is very much necessary to adhere to the twin conditions as embedded in section 263. In the circumstances where only one of the conditions is satisfied and the condition is not dealt with, in such circumstances the proceedings initiated vide section 263 are without jurisdiction. That the said twin conditions

SHRI BABBU SINGH S/O SHRI NACHHATER SINGH,BATHINDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICEER WARD-2(1), BATHINDA

In the result all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. Laliet Kumar & Dr. M. L. Meena

2. Sh. Tek Chand 34-42 40 & 41 3. Sh. Chhugamal Rajpal 110-115 110 4. Omkam Developers Ltd. 116-140 127,128, 133 & 137 5. N.C. Cables Ltd. 141-145 141 d). Thus, on the basis of above said judgments, it was submitted that the reassessment proceedings are void abinitio on account of ‘mechanical ITA Nos. 162 to 164/Asr/2019

SHRI NACHHATER SINGH S/O SHRI GURBAKSH SINGH,BATHINDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICEER , BATHINDA

In the result all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. Laliet Kumar & Dr. M. L. Meena

2. Sh. Tek Chand 34-42 40 & 41 3. Sh. Chhugamal Rajpal 110-115 110 4. Omkam Developers Ltd. 116-140 127,128, 133 & 137 5. N.C. Cables Ltd. 141-145 141 d). Thus, on the basis of above said judgments, it was submitted that the reassessment proceedings are void abinitio on account of ‘mechanical ITA Nos. 162 to 164/Asr/2019

SHRI.BOOTA SINGH S/O. SH. NACHATER SINGH, BATHINDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(1), BATHINDA

In the result all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. Laliet Kumar & Dr. M. L. Meena

2. Sh. Tek Chand 34-42 40 & 41 3. Sh. Chhugamal Rajpal 110-115 110 4. Omkam Developers Ltd. 116-140 127,128, 133 & 137 5. N.C. Cables Ltd. 141-145 141 d). Thus, on the basis of above said judgments, it was submitted that the reassessment proceedings are void abinitio on account of ‘mechanical ITA Nos. 162 to 164/Asr/2019

SH. GURBACHAN SINGH BRAR,MOGA vs. ITO, WARD - 1,, MOGA

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

gain instead of long term capital loss shown by the assessee and accepted by the AO. The AO has not enquired even from the assessee, the reasons for selling the property at a rate which would yield long term capital loss as a prudent person would not sell property, the property which would yield. But, even

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

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

gain instead of long term capital loss shown by the assessee and accepted by the AO. The AO has not enquired even from the assessee, the reasons for selling the property at a rate which would yield long term capital loss as a prudent person would not sell property, the property which would yield. But, even