INCOME TAX OFFICER, INCOME TAX OFFICE vs. VIKAS MEHRA, THE MALL

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed being devoid of

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

1) and therefore, the appellant was issued summons us 131 for personal appearance on 14.11.2019 along with bank account and detailed capital account explaining the increase in large share capital during the year. In response Sh. Jatinder Nagpal, Advocate filed online reply along with capital account, copy of registered deed in respect of immovable property and documentary evidence relating

MR RUDER MANI WALIA,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2 (3), JALANDHAR

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

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No.257/Asr/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18

gains is that of the LIC maturity proceeds only. 6.2) Tax treatment of “any sum received under a Life Insurance Policy”: It is important to note that section 10(10D) and section 194DA deals with “any sum received under a Life Insurance Policy” and “Payment in respect of Life Insurance Policy” respectively. Incomes not included in total income

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

gain and it is not subjected to tax under any head of income and it is not liable for tax in terms of section 2(24),28,45 & 56 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. [The taxability of Carbon Credits stands changed w.e.f. AY 2018-19] I.T.A. No.193/Asr/2022 48 Assessment Year: 2018-19 c) Further the credits under

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

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee is allowed

gain\n(LTCG) to claim exemption under section 10 (38) was based on a proposal given by\nAssessing Officer, exercise of jurisdiction under section 263 was not justified - Held, yes\n[Paras 8 and 9] [In favour of assessee]\n27.\nThe Ld AR further argued on applicability of clause(a) of explanation 2 to\nsection 263 and relied upon

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

gain from the business within the meaning of section 28(1) of the Act , because in the instant case, the presence of business activity is totally absent. 7.1 The Ld. DR further submitted that in the instant case, PUNGRAIN has also treated the amount paid to the assessee in the nature of rent and has deducted TDS under the provisions

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

gain from the business within the meaning of section 28(1) of the Act , because in the instant case, the presence of business activity is totally absent. 7.1 The Ld. DR further submitted that in the instant case, PUNGRAIN has also treated the amount paid to the assessee in the nature of rent and has deducted TDS under the provisions

SATIA INDUSTRIES LIMITED,MUKTSAR, PUNJAB vs. DCIT, ACIT CIRCLE 1, BATHINDA

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Udayan Das Gupta & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 527/Asr/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2020-21

49-0 Deg. 2. Less: Loss due to -84,53,673 i friction/Radiation/Convection (20.50%) 3. Net energy available for MP, 34,30 27,657 LP and electricity generation 4. Medium Pressure & Low- 27,52,57,845 Pressure steam produced 5. 1 kg of 69,28 300 condenser steam 6. Total energy consumed in 6,08,40,912 generation of electricity

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

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL CIRCLE), JAMMU vs. ANITA KAPAHI, JAMMU

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed being devoid of merits

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Krinwant Sahay

49 of the 1908 Act have been amended clarifying that unless the document containing contract to transfer for consideration of any immovable property for the purpose of section 53A of 1882 Act is registered, it shall not have effect for purposes of section 53A of the 1882 Act. (Para 21]" The jurisdictional High Court of Punjab & Haryana has clearly upheld

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

Capital Gain, exemption u/s 10(36) of the Act, deduction u/s 57 of the Act and unsecured loans and the assessees furnished all the relevant documents which were examined by the AO who has taken a possible view. Therefore, it is our considered view that there was a due application of mind on the part

ISHAR INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELPOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,BATHINDA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, BATHINDA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Hybrid Hearing) I.T.A. No. 686/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2022-23

Capital IQ (India) (P.) Ltd. vs. ACIT, 158 taxmann.com 12 (Hyd. Trib). Nehru Memorial Education Society vs. ITO (Exemp.) 161 taxmann.com 312 (Cochin Trib.). 7. Regarding the claim of unabsorbed depreciation brought forward amounting to Rs.1,50,49,432/- the Ld AR submitted that the first appellate authority has denied the set off observing that no adjustment was made

GURU NANAK MILK PRODUCTS ,FEROZEPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR

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

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

section 36(1)(iii) of the Act and required to be capitalised with the cost of immovable properties. Therefore an addition of Rs. 41,44,372/- being 50% of the interest claimed is hereby added of total income of the assessee .…….” Sir, in this regard it submitted as under: 1. That modus operandi of assessee’s business model is that

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee ITA No

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No.238/Asr/2023 Assessment Year: 2020-21

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 80P(1

SHRI MOHD MANZOOR,RAJOURI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -2 (3), JAMMU

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

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

capital gain tax, Assessing Officer erred in treating said deposit as unexplained investment of assessee [In favour of assessee] e) 2017] 83 taxmann.com 246 (Mumbai - Trib.) IN THE ITAT MUMBAI BENCH ' J'Jaspal Singh Sehgal v. Income-tax Officer WD 21(2)(1), Mumbai* Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Cash credit (Cash) - Assessment year 2009-10 - Where

M/S GCA MARKETING PVT. LTD,BATHINDA vs. A.C.I.T , CIRCLE-1,, BATHINDA

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

section 148 of the I. T. Act. As such, assessment framed in response to such a notice is void abinitio. The same be cancelled". 2. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in confirming the gross receipts of Rs. 39,03,62,282/- as income of the assessee company from

M/S CGA MARKETING PVT. LTD,BATHINDA vs. ASST. COMM. OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1, BATHINDA

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

section 148 of the I. T. Act. As such, assessment framed in response to such a notice is void abinitio. The same be cancelled". 2. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in confirming the gross receipts of Rs. 39,03,62,282/- as income of the assessee company from

M/S GCA MARKETING PVT. LTD,BATHINDA vs. A.C.I.T , CIRCLE-1,, BATHINDA

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

section 148 of the I. T. Act. As such, assessment framed in response to such a notice is void abinitio. The same be cancelled". 2. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in confirming the gross receipts of Rs. 39,03,62,282/- as income of the assessee company from

M/S GCA MARKETING PVT. LTD,BATHINDA vs. A.C.I.T , CIRCLE-1,, BATHINDA

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

section 148 of the I. T. Act. As such, assessment framed in response to such a notice is void abinitio. The same be cancelled". 2. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in confirming the gross receipts of Rs. 39,03,62,282/- as income of the assessee company from