THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, JALANDHAR vs. SH. SARWAN SINGH PHILLAUR, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Sh. N. S. Saini & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi. T. A. No. 562/(Asr)/2015 Assessment Year: 2007-08

section 54 of the Act, the entire capital gain arising from the assets from the transfer of land had escaped assessment. Therefore, he issued notice u/s 148 of the Act and made addition of the capital gains of Rs. 1

SH. SARWAN SINGH PHILLAUR,JALANDHAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Sh. N. S. Saini & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi. T. A. No. 562/(Asr)/2015 Assessment Year: 2007-08

section 54 of the Act, the entire capital gain arising from the assets from the transfer of land had escaped assessment. Therefore, he issued notice u/s 148 of the Act and made addition of the capital gains of Rs. 1

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 ASSISTANT 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 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

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

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2 , PHAGWARA vs. SH. SUCHA SINGH, PHILLAUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shrilaliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

gain tax. So, there was nothing illegal in mentioning eligibility of both deductions under income tax act. 18) It is totally wrong on part of A.O. to observe that by claiming deduction u/s 54 (b) f exemption u/s 10(37) becomes redundant. Both deductions act in separate field and require independent specific conditions to be satisfied for claiming them

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

section 50B of the Act. Copy of No objection certificate of the AO with regard to the aforesaid transaction obtained u/s 281(1) of the Act was also filed. Even before the Ld. Pr.CIT we find the assessee had reiterated his submissions made before the AO justifying its transaction which stand reproduced at paras 7.2 and 7.3 of the order

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

54, Dada Jalandhar. Colony, P.O. 424, Industrial Area, Jalandhar. [PAN:-AABPW0947M] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Sh. Vikas Bhagat, Adv. Respondent by Sh. Prashant Singh, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 19.06.2023 Date of Pronouncement 17.07.2023 ORDER Per:Anikesh Banerjee, JM: The instant appeal of the assessee was filed against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMMU vs. M/S. JAMMU DEVELPMENT AUTHORITY,, JAMMU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of the department is dismissed

Bench: Sh. N. S. Saini & Sh. N. K. Choudhryita No. 498/Asr./2013 : Asstt. Year : 2005-06 Jammu Development Authority, Vs Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vikas Bhawan, Rail Head Tax, Circle-I, Complex, Jammu, J & K Jammu (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadfj7335A Ita No. 494/Asr./2013 : Asstt. Year : 2005-06 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vs Jammu Development Authority, Tax, Circle-I, Vikas Bhawan, Rail Head Jammu Complex, Jammu, J & K (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcp1720E Assessee By : Shri. R. K. Gupta, Ca & Shri. Vasu Gupta, Ca Revenue By : Shri. M. P. Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing :21.02.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.03.2019 Order Per N. S. Saini: These Are The Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee & Revenue Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Dated 06.05.2013, Jammu.

1) though a formal deed of title may not have been executed and registered, and he would be entitled to depreciation thereon. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs Podar Cement (P) Ltd has while interpreting the section 22 of the Act has observed that 'owner' for the purpose of sec 22, is person

M/S. JAMMU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,,JAMMU ( J&K) vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMMU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of the department is dismissed

Bench: Sh. N. S. Saini & Sh. N. K. Choudhryita No. 498/Asr./2013 : Asstt. Year : 2005-06 Jammu Development Authority, Vs Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vikas Bhawan, Rail Head Tax, Circle-I, Complex, Jammu, J & K Jammu (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadfj7335A Ita No. 494/Asr./2013 : Asstt. Year : 2005-06 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vs Jammu Development Authority, Tax, Circle-I, Vikas Bhawan, Rail Head Jammu Complex, Jammu, J & K (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcp1720E Assessee By : Shri. R. K. Gupta, Ca & Shri. Vasu Gupta, Ca Revenue By : Shri. M. P. Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing :21.02.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.03.2019 Order Per N. S. Saini: These Are The Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee & Revenue Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Dated 06.05.2013, Jammu.

1) though a formal deed of title may not have been executed and registered, and he would be entitled to depreciation thereon. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs Podar Cement (P) Ltd has while interpreting the section 22 of the Act has observed that 'owner' for the purpose of sec 22, is person

ITO, WARD- 3(3), SRINAGAR vs. SMT. ZEENAB, BEMINA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue Department stands dismissed, whereas the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes on the aforesaid reasons stated above

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N.K.Choudhry

section 2(14) of the Income Tax Act and duly held by the assesse for the last 17 years thus, the addition made by the AO on account of Short Term Capital Gain is deleted. 4.2 In our considered view as it is not in doubt that the assessee was in possession of the land for the last around

SMT. ZEENAB,SRINAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(3),, SRINAGAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue Department stands dismissed, whereas the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes on the aforesaid reasons stated above

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N.K.Choudhry

section 2(14) of the Income Tax Act and duly held by the assesse for the last 17 years thus, the addition made by the AO on account of Short Term Capital Gain is deleted. 4.2 In our considered view as it is not in doubt that the assessee was in possession of the land for the last around

SMT. JANAK RANI DHINGRA,HARYANA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,, MOGA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. N. S. Saini & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi. T. A. No. 294/(Asr)/2016 Assessment Year: 2006-07

54 and Sec. 54F of the Act are allowable to the Assessee only on construction or purchase of new residential house, therefore, he made additon of Rs. 4,40,000/- disallowing the deduction of Long Term Capital Gains from sale of residential house as declared by the Assessee. Thereafter, the AO levied penalty u/s 271(1

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, AMRITSAR. vs. SH. SHIV RAJ SINGH BAWA, AMRITSAR.

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is allowed and the assessee’s CO, dismissed

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 407/Asr/2016 Assessment Year: 2012-13

54-56). Toward his part of the purchase cost (i.e., Rs.2,58,77,200), the assessee paid Rs.175.17 lacs by cheque/s and Rs.83.602 lacs in cash. On 18.05.2011, the co-owners entered into another agreement to sell the said land at the rate of Rs.140 lacs per acre, to one Darpan Jain s/o Sh. Dharamvir Jain, who had, under

M/S G G OILS & FATS PVT.LTD ,BATHINDA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BATHINDA

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi. T. A. No. 508/Asr/2017 Assessment Year: 2014-15

section 23A company (i.e., a company in which the public is not substantially interested) can be said to have been availed of for his benefit by the shareholder. The matter was referred to the President of the Tribunal, who agreed with the view by the AM. A loan or advance received by a share-holder assumed the character of dividend