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

Section 56(2)(viia) are not applicable on the Assessee Commissioner with respect to both of the aforementioned subject sale transactions. However the assessee has failed to consider that the assessee has also purchased 2323 shares of M/s Neeman Medical International BV (Neeman BV) on 31-03- 2014. The AO has also failed to examine as t how two shares

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

2,99,10,000/- during financial year 2008-09. (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

M/S CITI PLAZA,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , WARD 3(1), JALANDHAR

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

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

capital gain, if any was assessable in AY 2006-07, which claim had been accepted by his predecessor to delete the addition made in AY 2005-06, now the contentions raised by assessee were totally misleading and contrary to facts. 4. The assessee had relied upon a plethora of under noted cases, wherein the findings/directions were elaborately explained

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

2(22)(e), for it to be regarded as dividend there-under. The only amount ‘repaid’ by the assessee to GAPL during this period (i.e., from 15.10.2013 to 06.11.2013) is Rs. 7,69,144 (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

M/S ACTIVE TOOLS (P). LIMITED,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -II, JALANDHAR

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

2,62,32,509/- and as per physical verification amounted to Rs. 3,12,00,410/-. Stocks were excess by Rs. 49,67,901/-. There was difference in valuation of building also, building as per books amounted to Rs. 51,23,155/- whereas as per valuation report it amounted to Rs.1,40,00,000/- giving difference

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

71, Ward-1(3), Bathinda S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali [PAN: EFLPB 2067E] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sh. P. N. Arora, Adv. Respondent by : Sh. Trilochan Singh PS Khalsa, DR Date of Hearing: 24.12.2021 Date of Pronouncement: 21.02.2022 ORDER PER RAVISH SOOD, JM The present appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the respective orders passed by the Commissioner of 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

71, Ward-1(3), Bathinda S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali [PAN: EFLPB 2067E] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sh. P. N. Arora, Adv. Respondent by : Sh. Trilochan Singh PS Khalsa, DR Date of Hearing: 24.12.2021 Date of Pronouncement: 21.02.2022 ORDER PER RAVISH SOOD, JM The present appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the respective orders passed by the Commissioner of Income

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"

71, 720 as cash credit under section 68 of the Act. The AO without prejudice to the assessment made by him propounded alternating theories considering the possibilities of higher judicial authorities. Such as an exercise by the AO is of no consequence. Nor it is within his powers to pre-empt the decision of the higher judicial authorities. Therefore

THE DY. COMMISSIONER INCOME-TAX, JAMMU vs. M/S. HORIZON BUILDCON PVT. LTD,, JAMMU

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue in I

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

71 (SC). We are of the view that unless there is evidence that more than what is stated in the documents or was received, no higher price can be taken to be the basis for computation of tax either in business transaction or capital gain transactions. The entire onus is on Revenue and the inferences might be drawn in certain

THE DY. COMMISSIONER INCOME-TAX, JAMMU vs. M/S. HORIZON BUILDCON PVT. LTD,, JAMMU

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue in I

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

71 (SC). We are of the view that unless there is evidence that more than what is stated in the documents or was received, no higher price can be taken to be the basis for computation of tax either in business transaction or capital gain transactions. The entire onus is on Revenue and the inferences might be drawn in certain

THE DY. COMMISSIONER INCOME-TAX, JAMMU vs. M/S. HORIZON BUILDCON PVT. LTD,, JAMMU

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue in I

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

71 (SC). We are of the view that unless there is evidence that more than what is stated in the documents or was received, no higher price can be taken to be the basis for computation of tax either in business transaction or capital gain transactions. The entire onus is on Revenue and the inferences might be drawn in certain

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 KANAV KHANNA,,AMRITSAR. vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, AMRITSAR.

In the result, the ground no- G of appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

2. The appellant had claimed in the return exemption from tax on long-term Capital Gain of Rs. 8,32,58,783/- in respect of the agricultural land which was compulsorily acquired by the Government and out of this sum, exemption of Rs.3,19,71,372/- has been allowed in respect of 48 Maria in Khasra No. 1444 while

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

section 250(4) for verification. The additional evidence can be accepted by the ld. CIT(A) by executing powerasfollowed Rule 46A. The ld. CIT(A) has accepted the additional evidence as per Rule 46A(1)(b) & (c). About the observation of the ld CIT(A), the ld DR had not made comment. But only issue is the additional evidence should

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

section 250(4) for verification. The additional evidence can be accepted by the ld. CIT(A) by executing powerasfollowed Rule 46A. The ld. CIT(A) has accepted the additional evidence as per Rule 46A(1)(b) & (c). About the observation of the ld CIT(A), the ld DR had not made comment. But only issue is the additional evidence should

M/S STEP BY STEP JUNIOR SCHOOL SOCIETY,AMRITSAR. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), CHANDIGARH

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

71[or any university or other educational institution72 or any hospital or other medical institution] before the 1st day of March, 1983; (iii) any accretion to the shares, forming part of the corpus mentioned in sub-clause (i) 73[and sub-clause (ia)], by way of bonus shares allotted to the fund, trust or institution 74[or any university

SHRI ONKAR SINGH ,HOSHIARPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3, HOSHIARPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee ITA No

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

capital gains tax. The appellant never objected to the revenue authorities about escapement of stamp duty on sale of land by him. The purchaser has not confirmed the excess price alleged by received in cash by the appellant. During appeal proceedings, no documents were annexed in support of the written submission by the appellant so as to support its contentions

SHRI ONKAR SINGH,HOSHIARPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3, HOSHIARPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee ITA No

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

capital gains tax. The appellant never objected to the revenue authorities about escapement of stamp duty on sale of land by him. The purchaser has not confirmed the excess price alleged by received in cash by the appellant. During appeal proceedings, no documents were annexed in support of the written submission by the appellant so as to support its contentions

SH. MANINDER SINGH CHEEMA,HOSHIARPUR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, HOSHIARPUR

In the result, the assessee appeal is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Laliet Kumar & Dr. M. L. Meenai.T.A. No. 702/Asr/2013 Assessment Year: 2009-10

section 71 of the Act, the losses can be set off against business income only , needful was not done, hence the income disclose during the survey for the cost incurred for development appellate is required to be treated as investment made outside the books of account and is required to be held as income from any other sources. Hence