ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL CIRCLE), JAMMU vs. ANITA KAPAHI, JAMMU

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed being devoid of merits

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Krinwant Sahay

capital gains , which was ultimately assessed , with an addition of Rs.2.05 cores u/s 69 of the Act, on the basis of suspicion of alleged on money payment relating to purchase of a plot of land , information flowing from impounded document Annexure A – 3. 4. The assessee’s husband Mr. Anil Kapahi and her two sons Mr. Akhil Kapahi

BHUPENDRA FLOUR MILLS PVT LTD,BATHINDA vs. ITO, WARD 1(1), BATHINDA, BATHINDA

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of out above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Shri Udayandasgupta, Jm आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.54/Asr/2025 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) M/S Bhupendra Flour Mills Pvt Ltd. Ito Ward - 1(1) बनाम/ Railway Road Central Revenue Building Bhatinda, Punjab – 151001 Civil Lines, Bhatinda Vs. Punjab - 151001 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaccb-6192-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) - Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Farhat Khan (Cit) – Ld. Dr (Virtual) सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05-02-2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 20.02.2026 : आदेश / O R D E R

capital gains. (iv) A conjoint reading of Section 2(24), Section 2(28A), Section 4, Section 10(37), Section 14, Section 45(5), Section 56(2)(viii), Section 145B(1) and Section 194LA of the Act makes it abundantly clear that any income which arises or is deemed to arise or accrue in India is chargeable

M/S BLUE CITY TOWNSHIP & COLONIZERS,AMRITSAR. vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,, AMRITSAR.

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

section 69 of the I. T. Act. 6. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, no addition for undisclosed investment can be made merely relying on the third party statement and evidence which has been retracted. 7. That the evidences relied upon by the AO for framing assessment were never confronted to the appellant and hence the assessment

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

capital gain claimed by the assessee as exempt income under RFCTLAAR Act on the basis that the circumstances in which the appellant has purchased the land as highlighted by the AO in his order are not relevant to decide on the issue of taxability of the award as soon as the award satisfies the condition mandated under section

THE DY. COMMISSIONER INCOME-TAX, JAMMU vs. M/S. HORIZON BUILDCON PVT. LTD,, JAMMU

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue in I

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

69 /69B of the IT Act,1961 by holding that the Documents i.e. MOU dated 22.01.2008 and supplement MOU dated 18.03.2008 which were found and seized during the time of search, though not signed by either of the parties, in this case; could not be taken as evidence of the payment of unaccounted money over and above the registration price

THE DY. COMMISSIONER INCOME-TAX, JAMMU vs. M/S. HORIZON BUILDCON PVT. LTD,, JAMMU

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue in I

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

69 /69B of the IT Act,1961 by holding that the Documents i.e. MOU dated 22.01.2008 and supplement MOU dated 18.03.2008 which were found and seized during the time of search, though not signed by either of the parties, in this case; could not be taken as evidence of the payment of unaccounted money over and above the registration price

THE DY. COMMISSIONER INCOME-TAX, JAMMU vs. M/S. HORIZON BUILDCON PVT. LTD,, JAMMU

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue in I

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

69 /69B of the IT Act,1961 by holding that the Documents i.e. MOU dated 22.01.2008 and supplement MOU dated 18.03.2008 which were found and seized during the time of search, though not signed by either of the parties, in this case; could not be taken as evidence of the payment of unaccounted money over and above the registration price

SHRI. NITIN PAL SINGH ,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(3), JALANDHAR

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

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

69 of Income-tax Act, 1961. 6. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on the facts in the case in ignoring the section of the Assessing Officer, in his remand report, wherein he pointed out a number: of credit entries which did not tally with submission of the assessee and were not verifiable

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(5), JALANDHAR vs. SHRI NITIN PAL SINGH , JALANDHAR

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

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

69 of Income-tax Act, 1961. 6. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on the facts in the case in ignoring the section of the Assessing Officer, in his remand report, wherein he pointed out a number: of credit entries which did not tally with submission of the assessee and were not verifiable

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AMRITSAR. vs. SH. JAIMAL SINGH, L/H. SH. PREM CHAND,, TARN TARAN

In the result, the appeal bearing ITA No

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

Capital gains tax in respect of the property at 22 Butts, Crescent, Hanworth, Fetham, London of late Prem Chand sold on 10-11-2006 was taxable in India in the assessment year 2007-08 since the transfer of the said property took place in FY 2006-07, and was not taxable in the assessment year under consideration. Likewise, the other

SHRI SATBIR SINGH BHULLAR,AMRITSAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- 5 (4), AMRITSAR

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

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

capital gain tax, Thiruvalla Assessing Officer erred in treating said deposit as unexplained investment of assessee [In favour of assessee] 6. 2015] 61 taxmann.com 425 Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - (Chandigarh - Trib.) IN THE Cash credit (Bank deposits) - Assessment ITAT CHANDIGARH year 2008-09 - Assessee made deposits of BENCH 'A' certain sum in bank account - He made

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

SHRI MOHD MANZOOR,RAJOURI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -2 (3), JAMMU

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

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

Section 69 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Unexplained investments (Immovable property) - Assessment year 2010-11 - Where cashdeposited in bank account of assessee was explained from sale proceeds of her husband's property and assessee's husband, a NRI, had declared said sale consideration and paid capital gain

SHRI NITIN AIMA,SHRINAGAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3, SRINAGAR

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

69 [ITAT Mumbai]:\nThe issue in the case was as to whether DEEB was eligible for exemption u/s\n10BA. Sub-section (4) of section 10BA which provides for the method of\ncomputation of exemption is identical to sub-section (7) of section 10AA\nwhich is relevant to the present case. Section 10BA(4) reads as under:\n\"For the purposes

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

69,28,900 No dispute Condenser steam 5. Generation of 6,08,40,912 No dispute electricity 16. The Authorized Representative (AR) further drew the attention of the bench to the comparison of the cost ratio as calculated by the TPO and the one provided by the assessee. The relevant comparison chart relied upon by the AR is as follows