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

section 69B of the Act. Dy. CIT v. Horizon Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. When the assessee further challenged the same before the Tribunal, it quashed and set aside the order of the Assessing Officer and that of CIT(Appeals) and held the entire addition to have been made on the basis of presumptions and surmises by holding thus: - 14. From

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

section 69B of the Act. Dy. CIT v. Horizon Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. When the assessee further challenged the same before the Tribunal, it quashed and set aside the order of the Assessing Officer and that of CIT(Appeals) and held the entire addition to have been made on the basis of presumptions and surmises by holding thus: - 14. From

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

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee is allowed

gain\n(LTCG) to claim exemption under section 10 (38) was based on a proposal given by\nAssessing Officer, exercise of jurisdiction under section 263 was not justified - Held, yes\n[Paras 8 and 9] [In favour of assessee]\n27.\nThe Ld AR further argued on applicability of clause(a) of explanation 2 to\nsection 263 and relied upon

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

69B 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

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

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 donations cannot be regarded

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, AMRITSAR. vs. SHRI BALJINDERR SINGH CHAHAL, AMRITSAR.

In the result, the appeal of revenue ITA No

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No.434/Asr/2016 Assessment Year: 2009-10

capital gain calculated by the revenue related to transaction amounting to Rs.85,90,000/-. The revenue claimed that both the amounts are not declared by the assessee in the total income during filing of return. Aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) dismissed the order of the ld. AO. Accordingly, the revenue being

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, AMRITSAR. vs. SH. SURJIT SINGH, AMRITSAR.

In the result, the appeal of revenue ITA No

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No.434/Asr/2016 Assessment Year: 2009-10

capital gain calculated by the revenue related to transaction amounting to Rs.85,90,000/-. The revenue claimed that both the amounts are not declared by the assessee in the total income during filing of return. Aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) dismissed the order of the ld. AO. Accordingly, the revenue being

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 amounting to Rs.67.53 lacs only, (without any income being declared either from Jammu Hotels Pvt. Ltd. or from Future Housing Infra Pvt. Ltd.)Referring to the impounded documents, the Ld DR submitted that the same has been found at the premises of the partnership firm M/s Kapahi Construction Company where the husband and both the sons

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

SH. MANINDER SINGH CHEEMA,HOSHIARPUR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, HOSHIARPUR

In the result, the assessee appeal is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Laliet Kumar & Dr. M. L. Meenai.T.A. No. 702/Asr/2013 Assessment Year: 2009-10

capital account with Rs, 89,95,000/-. 3 3. That in the statement of assessable income business related items of Rs. 89,95,000/- were declared under the head business income & balance Rs. 30,05,000/- were declared under the head income from other source. 4. That Rs. 83,00;000/- development expenses of Kartar Estate were debited in trading