M/S SHANKAR RICE & GENERAL MILLS ,MOGA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE, MOGA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

69, 69A and 69C being treated separately, because such deemed income is not income from salary, house property, profits and gains of business or profession, or capital gains, nor is it income from ’other sources' because the provisions of sections

DR. HARPRIT SINGH ,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Choudhry & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.संसंसंसं././././I.T.A No.195/Asr/2018 िनधा"रणवष"/A.Y.:2011-12 िनधा"रणवष" िनधा"रणवष" िनधा"रणवष" Dr. Harprit Singh, C/O M/S. Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Orthonova Hospital, Near Nari Income-Tax, Niketan, Nakoddar Road, Central Circle –Ii, Jalandhar Jalandhar(Pb) (Pb) Pan: Acmps 7237 F अपीलाथ"Appellant अपीलाथ" ""यथ"/Respondent ""यथ" अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" ""यथ" ""यथ"

gain, it was not open to the Revenue to seek to bring it a tax under the revenue receipt. There can be no manner of doubt that what is in the nature of capital receipt, cannot be brought to tax by resorting to Section 10 (3) read with section 56 of the Act.” Therefore, Learned Counsel argued that when

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

69 of the Income tax Act, amounting to Rs.7,00,000/- is deleted. Ground of appeal No. 3 &4: The AO has made the addition on account of Short Term Capital Gain by taking the deemed value of the consideration in terms of section

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

69 of the Income tax Act, amounting to Rs.7,00,000/- is deleted. Ground of appeal No. 3 &4: The AO has made the addition on account of Short Term Capital Gain by taking the deemed value of the consideration in terms of section

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 56(2)(viia) are not applicable on the Assessee Commissioner with respect to both of the aforementioned subject sale transactions. However the assessee has failed to consider that the assessee has also purchased 2323 shares of M/s Neeman Medical International BV (Neeman BV) on 31-03- 2014. The AO has also failed to examine as t how two shares

M/S SANT BABA BHAG SINGH MEMORIAL CHARITABLE SOCIETY,JALANDHAR vs. D.C.I.T, CIRCLE - 1 (EXEMPTION), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 432/(Asr)/2017 Assessment Year: 2014-15

69, section 69A, section 69B, section 69C or section 69D, at the rate of thirty per cent; and (b) the amount of income-tax with which the assessee would have been chargeable had his total income been reduced by the amount of income referred to in clause (a).". The respective cases 3.2 The assessee’s case is that the impugned

POONAM MARWAHA,AMRITSAR vs. ACIT DCIT CEN CIR, AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee is allowed

69 r.w.s. 115BBE of the act.\n3.\nThat the Ld. PCIT has erred in law in invoking the provisions of section 263 without\nthere being any specific charge of no enquiry having been made the AO.\n4.\nThe Ld. PCIT-Central Circle Ludhiana has erred both on fact and law in not\nproperly considering the submission made before

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

capital gain earned by the assessee. 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, addition of Rs. 5,33,21,805/- out of addition of Rs. 6,83,21,805/- made by Ld. Assessing Officer, confirmed by Learned CIT(A) is illegal and bad in law since: a). Certifiedof agreement alleged to have been executed by 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

capital gain earned by the assessee. 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, addition of Rs. 5,33,21,805/- out of addition of Rs. 6,83,21,805/- made by Ld. Assessing Officer, confirmed by Learned CIT(A) is illegal and bad in law since: a). Certifiedof agreement alleged to have been executed by the assessee

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

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.

69,560/-. The appellant argued that the agency charges accrued only on the work done and not on mere receipts of deposits from various agencies. In the submission made before me the appellant has stated that no agency charges were levied on state plan and Central plan grants to it and no question of seeking agency charges from government arises

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.

69,560/-. The appellant argued that the agency charges accrued only on the work done and not on mere receipts of deposits from various agencies. In the submission made before me the appellant has stated that no agency charges were levied on state plan and Central plan grants to it and no question of seeking agency charges from government arises

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, AMRITSAR. vs. M/S PUNJAB COMMISSION SHOP.,, AMRITSAR.

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sh. N. S. Saini & Sh. N. K. Choudhryita No. 280/Asr./2016 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Income Tax Officer, Vs M/S Punjab Commission Shop., Ward-3(3), 63, Mewa Mandi, Amritsar Amritsar (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabfp5600Q

gains of business and profession”. ITA No. 280/Asr./2016 7 Punjab Commission Shop. Section 70/71 allows set off of loss from different sources within same heads and loss in one head against income under other head in the same year. In Radhey Developers Pvt. Ltd. Gujarat High Court has said that income which doesn’t fall within