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

section is very wide, but at the same time it cannot be stated to be a plenary power. The AO can assume jurisdiction under the said provision provided there is sufficient material before him. He cannot act on the basis of his whim and fancy, and the existence of material must be real. Further, there must be nexus between

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

capital gain is exempt on sale of agricultural land by the assessee. 5.3 The Ld. Counsel of the assessee explained from the above ‘order sheet entries’, that the ‘latest Jamabandhi and Gardavari’ was obtained by the Assessing Officer in order to substantiate that land before sale was being used for agricultural purposes and further, the Inspector was deputed to make

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

section 96 of RFCTLARR Act, 2013 cannot be given to the appellant from Long Term Capital Gains, arising from Compulsory Acquisition of Land under National Highway Act, 1956, while ignoring the contention of the assessee that the CIT(A) NFAC has allowed the exemption, on identical facts, in the case of Jaswinder Kaur Sahni, Bathinda; that ignored the contention

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

253 : (1995) 214 ITR 302 (Ker) ………………. That without prejudice to our submission that provisions of section 154/155 of the Act are not attracted in this case since there is no glaring mistake apparent from records, there is no obvious ITA 260/Amr/2019 6 mistake of fact or law from the record and issue is not debatable. However reply to proposed rectification

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

253 and the returned income of the assessee was accepted. [Judgments on the issue that carbon credits are capital receipts upto AY 2017-18 are attached in the Indexed Judgment Set] 16. It is also submitted herewith that consistency has to be maintained in the Income Tax Proceedings also as per the following judgments: a. CIT Vs/ DalmiaDadri Cement

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

253 Taxman 479 (SC) wherein it is held that the service of notice on representative of assessee on ground of non-availability of assessee is deemed service of notice on assessee and sufficient compliance of requirement of section. Accordingly, the issue of validity of service of notice under section 148 is upheld. Thus, ground No. 4 of the appeal

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

253 Taxman 479 (SC) wherein it is held that the service of notice on representative of assessee on ground of non-availability of assessee is deemed service of notice on assessee and sufficient compliance of requirement of section. Accordingly, the issue of validity of service of notice under section 148 is upheld. Thus, ground No. 4 of the appeal

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, AMRITSAR. vs. SH. SHIV RAJ SINGH BAWA, AMRITSAR.

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is allowed and the assessee’s CO, dismissed

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 407/Asr/2016 Assessment Year: 2012-13

capital by the company, as contended by it. The amounts received by way of salami were the trading receipts of the business of acquiring leases and granting sub-leases, and the profit therefrom liable to tax as business income. (AY 2012-13) ITO v. Shiv Raj Singh Bawa 3.2 The next issue confronting us is if the disallowance

GURU TEG BAHADUR EDUCATIONAL TRUST ,JALANDHAR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ( EXEMPTIONS), CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

253 ITR798] where it was held that in exercising discretion under section 5 of Limitation Act. 1963, to condone delay for sufficient cause is not preferring an appeal or other application within the period prescribed, courts should adopt a pragmatic approach. A distinction must be made between a case where the delay is inordinate and a case where the delay