INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1 , HOSHIAPUR vs. SHRI HARPINDER SINGH GILL , HOSHIARPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

51,226/-. Section 96 of the Act mandates that on compulsory acquisition of land, compensation provided to the owner of the land shall be exempt from Income-tax: 96. Exemption from income-tax, stamp duty and fees.-No income-tax or stamp duty shall be levied on any award or agreement made under this Act, except under section

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

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee is allowed

51 of PB], and in order to resolve and settle the matter,\nbefore the survey team, the appellant chose to offer the excess stock valued by the\nsurvey team at Rs.49,98,000/- ( r/o Rs.50 lakhs ) as business income, over and above\nthe normal business profits arising from the same cosmetic business itself, because\nno stock has been separately identified

ATC LOGISTICAL SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED ,DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, AMRITSAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee ITA No

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

capital expenditure33 or personal expenses of the assessee), laid out or expended wholly and exclusively33 for the purposes of the business33 or profession shall be allowed in computing the income chargeable under the head "Profits and gains of business or profession". 34[35[Explanation 1.]—For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that any expenditure incurred

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

51. The AR also provided a comparison between the method adopted by the DRP and the method applied by the assessee, as detailed below: 527-Asr-2024 Satia Industries, Muktsar 15 Particul Units of Rate Rate per Differen Difference ars electricity per unit unit ce (Rs.) produced conside considere (per r-ed by d by DRP unit) the assesse

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