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(14) of the Act and thus any sale of such land would attract capital gain taxes liability. In the present case, the land in village – Bakarpur, does not fall under this criterion and hence it is an exempted 26 Indermeet Bains v. Pr. CIT agricultural Land from capital gain. In our view, no capital gain was liable

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

SHRI AMRITPAL SINGH (PROP),JALANDHAR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- 1, JALANDHAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee ITA No

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

section 263 be quashed, annulled and cancelled in the interest of justice, equity and fair-play. GOA:- 14:- Vide ground of appeal No.14, it is humbly prayed that in the event of any adversity arising out of the brief written submission besides judgement set, I.T.A. No. 425/Asr/2019 19 Assessment Year: 2014-15 assessee may kindly be afforded an effective opportunity

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

capital gains. (iv) A conjoint reading of Section 2(24), Section 2(28A), Section 4, Section 10(37), Section 14, Section 45(5), Section 56(2)(viii), Section 145B(1) and Section 194LA of the Act makes it abundantly clear that any income which arises or is deemed to arise or accrue in India is chargeable

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

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

Section 263 of the Income Tax Act. 3.11. The Learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax–3, Ludhiana passed an order u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 23.03.2017 by holding that the assessment order dated 30.03.2015 is erroneous in as much as prejudicial to the interest of Revenue and set aside the order to the file

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

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

Section 263 of the Income Tax Act. 3.11. The Learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax–3, Ludhiana passed an order u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 23.03.2017 by holding that the assessment order dated 30.03.2015 is erroneous in as much as prejudicial to the interest of Revenue and set aside the order to the file

ESTATE OF SH. JAGIR SINGH BHULLAR,AMRITSAR. vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, TARN TARAN

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

Bench: Shri N.K. Choudhry, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.306/Asr/2014 & 591/Asr/2015 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Estate Of Sh. Jagir Singh Bhullar Vs. Income Tax Officer, Through S. Jasbir—Singh Ward-1(3), Bhullar, Tarn Taran, E-250 Ranjit Avenue, Amritsar, Punjab. Punjab.

2. That facts stated in the assessment order in my case which are not only incorrect but misleading in as much as there was neither original assessment for this assessment year nor any invocation of section 263 nor any order of Worthy CIT Amritsar u/s 263. If there was any such order it should have been referred

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, TARN TARAN vs. ESTATE OF LATE SH. JAGIR SINGH BHULLAR, TARN TARAN

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

Bench: Shri N.K. Choudhry, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.306/Asr/2014 & 591/Asr/2015 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Estate Of Sh. Jagir Singh Bhullar Vs. Income Tax Officer, Through S. Jasbir—Singh Ward-1(3), Bhullar, Tarn Taran, E-250 Ranjit Avenue, Amritsar, Punjab. Punjab.

2. That facts stated in the assessment order in my case which are not only incorrect but misleading in as much as there was neither original assessment for this assessment year nor any invocation of section 263 nor any order of Worthy CIT Amritsar u/s 263. If there was any such order it should have been referred

SH. GURJINDER SINGH,AMRITSAR vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1, AMRITSAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

2 to Section 263 it will be observed that the AO had already made due enquiries and verification of all those points on the basis of which the Pr.CIT has passed the order u/s 263. Hence the assessment order framed by AO after making all the requisite enquiries and verification and with full application of mind was neither erroneous

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

gains from these REC/ESCs in India contain to right to transfer it. These credits have no other value. It must be emphasized if there is no carrying on of the business there are no RECs/ESCs The question of savings to emission arises only in to I.T.A. No.193/Asr/2022 23 Assessment Year: 2018-19 course of the business. The REC/ESCs

SMT. SATVIR KAUR W/O SH. SHINDER SINGH,FEROZEPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

section 263 of the l. T. Act, 1 9 6 1 after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard. 4. The case was reopened on the reasons that the assessee had deposited cash of Rs. 60,00,000 in her saving bank account maintained with the Oriental Bank of Commerce during the financial year 2010-11 and that no voluntary return

SMT. PARMINDER KAUR BRAR,KOTKAPURA vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1, AMRITSAR

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

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

2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Pr.CIT erred in initiating the proceedings u/s 263 on the receipt of proposal from AO, Ward 3(3), Faridkot through Additional CIT', Range I, Bathinda. The letter of the AO, Ward 3(3), Faridkot is not the record of any proceedings under

SHRI GURWINDER SINGH,BATHINDA vs. PRINCIPAL COMMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BATHINDA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

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

section 263.” 2. At the outset, the ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that the ld. Pr. CIT has been grossly unjustified in holding that the assessee was liable to pay capital gains

INCOME TAX OFFICER, FEROZEPUR vs. MS.JATIN AGRO, FORT ROAD

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Physical Hearing) I.T.A. No. 103 & 104/Asr/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2017-18 Ito, Ward-3(1), Vs. M/S Jatin Agro Fort Road, Ferozepur. 152-P, Ferozepur. [Pan:-Aarpm5393F] (Appellant) (Respondent) Sh. Ashray Sarna, Ca Appellant By Respondent By Sh. Sunil Gautam, Cit. Dr

2 6.2. The AO has rejected the claim of deduction made under section 35AD(8)(C)(ii) of the Act, by stating that the income from warehousing is derived from house property and shifted the claim of the Appellant from business to house property and denied the deduction claim under section 35AD

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1),FEROZEPUR, FEROZEPUR vs. MS.JATIN AGRO, FORT ROAD

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Physical Hearing) I.T.A. No. 103 & 104/Asr/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2017-18 Ito, Ward-3(1), Vs. M/S Jatin Agro Fort Road, Ferozepur. 152-P, Ferozepur. [Pan:-Aarpm5393F] (Appellant) (Respondent) Sh. Ashray Sarna, Ca Appellant By Respondent By Sh. Sunil Gautam, Cit. Dr

2 6.2. The AO has rejected the claim of deduction made under section 35AD(8)(C)(ii) of the Act, by stating that the income from warehousing is derived from house property and shifted the claim of the Appellant from business to house property and denied the deduction claim under section 35AD

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

capital amount of refund due to him or to gain on account of sale of properties, his father Sh. Harjit Singh such other person; (PAN: FPHPS8530E) is ready to pay taxes on the same.’ (b) every person who is deemed to The appellant is not deemed to the assessee on behalf of the father Sh. be an assessee under

SMT. SATINDER KAUR,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2 (4), JALANDHAR

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

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No.136/Asr/2023 Assessment Year: 2009-10

capital gain. Aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) passed an order. The grievance of the assessee is that during passing the appeal order reasonable opportunity was denied for the assessee. The appeal order was passed by rejecting the ground of appeal of the assessee. Being aggrieved the assessee filed an appeal before

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AMRITSAR. vs. SH. JAIMAL SINGH, L/H. SH. PREM CHAND,, TARN TARAN

In the result, the appeal bearing ITA No

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

Capital gains tax in respect of the property at 22 Butts, Crescent, Hanworth, Fetham, London of late Prem Chand sold on 10-11-2006 was taxable in India in the assessment year 2007-08 since the transfer of the said property took place in FY 2006-07, and was not taxable in the assessment year under consideration. Likewise, the other