SHRI BHUPINDER SINGH ( PROP) THE NEST HOTELS & MOTELS,JALANDHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

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

section 56(2)(vii) were not applicable to the facts of the case. 5 That in the case of S. Kuldip Singh (brother) who is transferor, whose case for the same assessment year was reopened u/s 148 for non-showing of Capital Gains

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

SHRI NAROTAM SINGH,MANSA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -1(4), MANSA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are allowed

56,169/- vide order u/s 143(3)1147 dated 20.12.2017. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred on facts & law in confirming the validity of the proceedings u/s 1471148 because the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax did not record the satisfaction on the reasons recorded by the AO, as prescribed u/s 151, that the case of the assessee

SHRI TARLOCHAN SINGH,MANSA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(4), MANSA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are allowed

56,169/- vide order u/s 143(3)1147 dated 20.12.2017. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred on facts & law in confirming the validity of the proceedings u/s 1471148 because the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax did not record the satisfaction on the reasons recorded by the AO, as prescribed u/s 151, that the case of the assessee

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

56(2)(vi) of the Act, however, in the absence of any addition having been made as regards the reason on the basis of which the case of the assessee was reopened, the assessment framed by him u/s 147/143(3), dated 30.03.2016 was liable to be quashed; (ii). that the addition made as regards the alleged on-money

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

56(2)(vi) of the Act, however, in the absence of any addition having been made as regards the reason on the basis of which the case of the assessee was reopened, the assessment framed by him u/s 147/143(3), dated 30.03.2016 was liable to be quashed; (ii). that the addition made as regards the alleged on-money