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

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

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. 1,83,75,000/- in the hands of the assessee. 4. On appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal

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

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. 1,83,75,000/- in the hands of the assessee. 4. On appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal

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

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

2(22)(e), for it to be regarded as dividend there-under. The only amount ‘repaid’ by the assessee to GAPL during this period (i.e., from 15.10.2013 to 06.11.2013) is Rs. 7,69,144 (on 16.10.2013), which is in respect of credits (dated 29.07.2013 & 31.07.2013) toward insurance payment. The same, though liable to be construed as dividend u/s. 2

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.

54,756/-. As per the appellant out of the total premium receipts of Rs 11,57,35,243/- of the year under consideration, Rs 9,58,09,089/- pertains to Nazul Land. The appellant has argued that the Jammu Development Authority is not the owner of the Nazul lands and they are only doing development work on land and transferring

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.

54,756/-. As per the appellant out of the total premium receipts of Rs 11,57,35,243/- of the year under consideration, Rs 9,58,09,089/- pertains to Nazul Land. The appellant has argued that the Jammu Development Authority is not the owner of the Nazul lands and they are only doing development work on land and transferring

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, AMRITSAR. vs. M/S BHAGAT INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION LTD.,, AMRITSAR.

The appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes and CO is also allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. Laliet Kumar & Dr. M. L. Meena

54, Janpath, New Delhi ( hereinafter referred to as “ LPPL” which term shall unless the context otherwise requires include its successors in interest and permitted assigns) through Mr Shashank Bhagat acting as Director of LPPL.” (e) The ld. CIT (A) could not get the entire picture of web of transactions for want of availability of the approved scheme

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

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 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

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