SMT. GURJEET KAUR,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- IV (2),, JALANDHAR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our

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

section (4A) of Sec. 132 of the Act. As is discernible from the records, we find that the A.O in his ‘remand report’ that was filed in the course of the proceedings before the CIT(A), had fairly admitted that he had only received a copy of the “agreement to sell”, dated 25.02.2008 from the Dy. DIT (Inv.), Ludhiana

SHRI SIMERDEEP SINGH,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Udayan Das Gupta, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No. 260/Asr/2022 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessmentyear: 2016-17) Shri Simerdeep Singh Dcit बनाम/ Vs. H. No. 833 Urban Estate Phase-I Central Circle-1 Jalandhar- 144001. Jalandhar. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Abrps-8245-F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/Appellant By : S/Shri J. S. Bhasin (Advocate)& A. P. Singh (Ca) –Ld.Ars ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondentby : Ms. Vandana Vijay Mohite (Cit) – Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 23-04-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 06-06-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

4A) on 09-09-2016 and the statement of Shri Kuljeet Singh (buyer of certain plot of land) was recorded on 20- 09-2016. In response to notice u/s 153A dated 28-05-2018, the assessee returned loss of Rs.186.23 Lacs. In the original return, the assessee computed capital loss of Rs.92.18 Lacs on sale of plot at 305, Chhoti

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

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

capital gains, nor as it income from "other sources" because the provisions of sections 69,69A, 69B and 69 treat unexplained investments, unexplained money, bullion etc. and unexplained expenditure as deemed income where the nature and sources of investment, acquisition or expenditure, as the case may be, have not been explained or satisfactorily explained. Therefore, in these cases, the source

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

gains of business incidental to attainment of objects shall be maintained in compliance to section 11 (4A) of Income Tax Act, 1961. 11. The registered office or the principal place of activity of the applicant should not be transferred outside the jurisdiction of undersigned except with the prior approval. 12. No asset shall be transferred without the knowledge of undersigned

M/S GURU RAM DASS EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,BATHINDA vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi. T. A. No. 598/Asr/2016 Assessment Year: N.A.

gains from it as being regarded as income liable for exemption u/s. 11(1)(a) where the ‘business’ is incidental to or subserves the charitable purpose (refer s. 11(4A)). The restriction, prior to sec. 11(4A), was spelt out u/s. 13(1)(bb), since omitted, stipulating a more stringent requirement of the business being carried on in the course