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

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

248/-, as shown in thecomputation of income, has been accepted without inquiry which would have been Long Term Capital Gains of Rs.81,53,086/- instead of loss on account of transfer of long term capital asset. The Assessing Officer has not enquired even from the assessee the reasons for selling the property at a rate which would yield Long Term

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

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

248/-, as shown in thecomputation of income, has been accepted without inquiry which would have been Long Term Capital Gains of Rs.81,53,086/- instead of loss on account of transfer of long term capital asset. The Assessing Officer has not enquired even from the assessee the reasons for selling the property at a rate which would yield Long Term

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

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

capital gain arise, scrutiny is necessary. The information available on record in the case of assessee as above have been considered and after careful consideration, I am of the considered view and have therefore reasons to believe that income to the extent of Rs.30,44,500/- Rs. 100,00,000/- & Rs.53,98,000/-being investment from undisclosed, sources' chargeable

SMT. JANAK RANI DHINGRA,HARYANA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,, MOGA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. N. S. Saini & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi. T. A. No. 294/(Asr)/2016 Assessment Year: 2006-07

Capital Gains from sale of residential house as declared by the Assessee. Thereafter, the AO levied penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act of Rs. 1,60,000/- being 100% of the amount of tax sought to be evaded by the assessee on the ground of furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income by the assessee. 4. On appeal

INDIAN TOOLS TECHNOLOGY CENTRE ,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFICER WARD II(1), JALANDHAR

Bench: Sh. Ravish Sood & Dr. M. L. Meena

Section 37(1). The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that just as receipts, though not actual receipts but accrued due are brought in for Income Tax Assessment, so also liabilities accrued due would be taken into account while working out the profits and gains of the business. It is 11 noticed that this decision was in respect of Bonus

SHRIMATI MANJIT KAUR,BATHINDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2 (1), BATHINDA

In the result, both the appeals are disposed off in the terms indicated as above

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

248 ITR 493 P&H An analysis of the aforementioned decisions of the Supreme Court makes it clear that the court can invalidate a notice issued under section 148 of the Act only if it Manjit Kaur & Baljinder Singh v. ITO is satisfied that no material was available before the Income-tax Officer on the basis of which he could

SHRI BALJINDER SINGH ,BATHINDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), BATHINDA

In the result, both the appeals are disposed off in the terms indicated as above

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

248 ITR 493 P&H An analysis of the aforementioned decisions of the Supreme Court makes it clear that the court can invalidate a notice issued under section 148 of the Act only if it Manjit Kaur & Baljinder Singh v. ITO is satisfied that no material was available before the Income-tax Officer on the basis of which he could