THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR vs. M/S BROADWAYS OVERSEAS LTD, JALANDHAR

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

54,82,409 on account of interest on receivables for excess period granted to AE. 3. It is prayed that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) be set-aside and that of the Assessing Officer restored. 4. That the appellant requests for leave to add or amend or alter the grounds of appeal before the appeal is heard

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR vs. M/S BROADWAY OVERSEAS LTD., JALANDHAR

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

54,82,409 on account of interest on receivables for excess period granted to AE. 3. It is prayed that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) be set-aside and that of the Assessing Officer restored. 4. That the appellant requests for leave to add or amend or alter the grounds of appeal before the appeal is heard

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR vs. M/S BROADWAY OVERSEAS LTD., JALANDHAR

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

54,82,409 on account of interest on receivables for excess period granted to AE. 3. It is prayed that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) be set-aside and that of the Assessing Officer restored. 4. That the appellant requests for leave to add or amend or alter the grounds of appeal before the appeal is heard

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR vs. M/S BROADWAY OVERSEAS LTD., JALANDHAR

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

54,82,409 on account of interest on receivables for excess period granted to AE. 3. It is prayed that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) be set-aside and that of the Assessing Officer restored. 4. That the appellant requests for leave to add or amend or alter the grounds of appeal before the appeal is heard

BRODAWAYS OVERSEAS LIMITED,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR

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

54,82,409 on account of interest on receivables for excess period granted to AE. 3. It is prayed that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) be set-aside and that of the Assessing Officer restored. 4. That the appellant requests for leave to add or amend or alter the grounds of appeal before the appeal is heard

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR vs. M/S BROADWAY OVERSEAS LTD., JALANDHAR

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

54,82,409 on account of interest on receivables for excess period granted to AE. 3. It is prayed that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) be set-aside and that of the Assessing Officer restored. 4. That the appellant requests for leave to add or amend or alter the grounds of appeal before the appeal is heard

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

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, FARIDKOT, BSNL BUILDING vs. M/S VOHRA SOLVEX PVT. LTD, SADIQ ROAD

In the result, C.O. filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Krinwant Sahay

54,912/-.” 6. Regarding the issue of reopening of assessment u/s 148 of the Act which has been challenged by the assesee before the ld. first appellate authority, the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the said grounds by observing as under: 7 I.T.A. No. 588/Asr/2024 & Ors Vohra Solvex Pvt Ltd. v. ITO & Ors “5.9 As highlighted in the various judgments

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

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

54 2.12.2016 Counsel appeared. Produced Ledger, Cash Book, Documentary evidence for claim of damaged goods to company not produced and neither any evidence of claim of damaged goods from customers produced. Vouchers in respect of Truck Hire charges were produced 6.12.2016 Counsel appeared. Furnished the written submission and copy of company a/c since financial year

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

capital gain. So, theissuewas needed to be investigated. The assessee has claimed I.T.A. No.72/Asr/2022 5 Assessment Year: 2011-12 exemption u/s 54 amounting to Rs.22,84,849/-. The grievance of the ld. PCIT that the ld. AO had not raised any query to verify the genuineness of the exemption claimed nor verify as to whether the pre-requisite required being

LATE. SH. GURMAIL. SINGH. S/O. SH. LAL SINGH,SRI MUKATSAR vs. DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -II, BATHINDA

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

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

54,50,000 27,25,000 27,25,000 2013-14 37,50,000 18,75,000 18,75,000 Total 1,40,65000 70,32,500 70,32,500 Late Sh. Gurmail Singh v. Dy. CIT & Ors 17. The theory of working of peak credit based on noting’s of the debits and credits entries of both sides written

LATE. SH. GURMAIL SINGH S/O. SH. LAL SINGH,SRI MUKATSAR vs. DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -II, BATHINDA

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

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

54,50,000 27,25,000 27,25,000 2013-14 37,50,000 18,75,000 18,75,000 Total 1,40,65000 70,32,500 70,32,500 Late Sh. Gurmail Singh v. Dy. CIT & Ors 17. The theory of working of peak credit based on noting’s of the debits and credits entries of both sides written

SH. ARASHPREET SINGH S/O LATE SH. GURMAIL SINGH,SHRI MUKATSAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-II, BATHINDA

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

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

54,50,000 27,25,000 27,25,000 2013-14 37,50,000 18,75,000 18,75,000 Total 1,40,65000 70,32,500 70,32,500 Late Sh. Gurmail Singh v. Dy. CIT & Ors 17. The theory of working of peak credit based on noting’s of the debits and credits entries of both sides written

SH. ARSPREET SINGH . S/O. LATE. SH. GURMAIL SINGH ,MUKTSAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE .II, BATHINDA

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

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

54,50,000 27,25,000 27,25,000 2013-14 37,50,000 18,75,000 18,75,000 Total 1,40,65000 70,32,500 70,32,500 Late Sh. Gurmail Singh v. Dy. CIT & Ors 17. The theory of working of peak credit based on noting’s of the debits and credits entries of both sides written

SH. ARASHPREET SINGH S/O. LATE SH. GURMAIL SINGH,MUKTSAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CERCLE- II, BATHINDA

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

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

54,50,000 27,25,000 27,25,000 2013-14 37,50,000 18,75,000 18,75,000 Total 1,40,65000 70,32,500 70,32,500 Late Sh. Gurmail Singh v. Dy. CIT & Ors 17. The theory of working of peak credit based on noting’s of the debits and credits entries of both sides written

SH. ARASHPREET SINGH S/O. LATE SH. GURMAIL SINGH,MUKTSAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-II, BATHINDA

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

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

54,50,000 27,25,000 27,25,000 2013-14 37,50,000 18,75,000 18,75,000 Total 1,40,65000 70,32,500 70,32,500 Late Sh. Gurmail Singh v. Dy. CIT & Ors 17. The theory of working of peak credit based on noting’s of the debits and credits entries of both sides written

SH. ARASHPREET SINGH. S/O.LATE.SH. GURMAIL SINGH,MUKTSAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX .CIRCLE-II, BATHINDA

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

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

54,50,000 27,25,000 27,25,000 2013-14 37,50,000 18,75,000 18,75,000 Total 1,40,65000 70,32,500 70,32,500 Late Sh. Gurmail Singh v. Dy. CIT & Ors 17. The theory of working of peak credit based on noting’s of the debits and credits entries of both sides written