M/S CITI PLAZA,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , WARD 3(1), JALANDHAR

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

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

2. That while taking the above view, the ld.CIT(A) was not justified in totally ignoring the binding decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajinder Nath vs CIT (1979) 120 ITR 14 (SC), heavily relied upon by assessee, holding that 'when it is left to the option or discretion of the ITO, whether or not to take an action

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2 (2), MUKTSAR vs. AJAIB SINGH, VILLAGE BHARU

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Krinwant Sahay(Hybrid Hearing) I.T.A. No. 354/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-13

gains has been assessed as Rs.3,68,15,000/-, as per order u/s 143(3). 4. The matter was carried in appeal before the first appellate authority. The ld. CIT(A) NFAC, deleted the addition by holding as follows: “3. The Assessee is an individual and is an agriculturist. The Assessee and his family are earning agricultural income from their

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

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee is allowed

capital 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

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 in respect of same property and where the explanation of the assessee was duly accepted and proceedings

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

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 ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR vs. M/S BROADWAY OVERSEAS LTD., JALANDHAR

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

70,197/- on account of receipt under DEPB and of Rs. 76,27,636/- under the Duty Drawback u/s 10B of the Act after crediting the said receipts of the aforesaid amounts into the Profit & Loss Account under Sections 28(iiic) and 28(iiib) of the Act. The AO disallowed the aforesaid claim of deduction under section

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR vs. M/S BROADWAY OVERSEAS LTD., JALANDHAR

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

70,197/- on account of receipt under DEPB and of Rs. 76,27,636/- under the Duty Drawback u/s 10B of the Act after crediting the said receipts of the aforesaid amounts into the Profit & Loss Account under Sections 28(iiic) and 28(iiib) of the Act. The AO disallowed the aforesaid claim of deduction under section

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR vs. M/S BROADWAY OVERSEAS LTD., JALANDHAR

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

70,197/- on account of receipt under DEPB and of Rs. 76,27,636/- under the Duty Drawback u/s 10B of the Act after crediting the said receipts of the aforesaid amounts into the Profit & Loss Account under Sections 28(iiic) and 28(iiib) of the Act. The AO disallowed the aforesaid claim of deduction under section

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR vs. M/S BROADWAYS OVERSEAS LTD, JALANDHAR

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

70,197/- on account of receipt under DEPB and of Rs. 76,27,636/- under the Duty Drawback u/s 10B of the Act after crediting the said receipts of the aforesaid amounts into the Profit & Loss Account under Sections 28(iiic) and 28(iiib) of the Act. The AO disallowed the aforesaid claim of deduction under section

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR vs. M/S BROADWAYS OVERSEAS LTD, JALANDHAR

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

70,197/- on account of receipt under DEPB and of Rs. 76,27,636/- under the Duty Drawback u/s 10B of the Act after crediting the said receipts of the aforesaid amounts into the Profit & Loss Account under Sections 28(iiic) and 28(iiib) of the Act. The AO disallowed the aforesaid claim of deduction under section

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR vs. M/S BROADWAY OVERSEAS LTD., JALANDHAR

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

70,197/- on account of receipt under DEPB and of Rs. 76,27,636/- under the Duty Drawback u/s 10B of the Act after crediting the said receipts of the aforesaid amounts into the Profit & Loss Account under Sections 28(iiic) and 28(iiib) of the Act. The AO disallowed the aforesaid claim of deduction under section

BRODAWAYS OVERSEAS LIMITED,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR

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

70,197/- on account of receipt under DEPB and of Rs. 76,27,636/- under the Duty Drawback u/s 10B of the Act after crediting the said receipts of the aforesaid amounts into the Profit & Loss Account under Sections 28(iiic) and 28(iiib) of the Act. The AO disallowed the aforesaid claim of deduction under section

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

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

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

70 DTR 170 (Special\nBench) (Indore): While dealing with section 10B it was held that export\nincentives are derived from the undertaking and are eligible for deduction\nu/s 10B. Section 10B(4) stipulates formula by apportioning profits of the\nbusiness of the undertaking in the ratio of turnover to the total turnover.\nOnce an income forms part of the business

SHRI AMAR NATH CHOUDHARY,JAMMU vs. DEPUTY CMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAMMU

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

section 250(6) of the Income tax Act, 1961 merely on assumptions, presumptions, surmises and conjectures, without appreciating the factual, legal and statutory position of the Law and facts of the case. Amar Nath Choudhary v. Dy. CIT 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming 10% of the total

SHRI AMAR NATH CHOUDHARY,JAMMU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAMMU

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

section 250(6) of the Income tax Act, 1961 merely on assumptions, presumptions, surmises and conjectures, without appreciating the factual, legal and statutory position of the Law and facts of the case. Amar Nath Choudhary v. Dy. CIT 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming 10% of the total

SHRI AMAR NATH CHOUDHARY,JAMMU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRA L CIRCLE, JAMMU

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

section 250(6) of the Income tax Act, 1961 merely on assumptions, presumptions, surmises and conjectures, without appreciating the factual, legal and statutory position of the Law and facts of the case. Amar Nath Choudhary v. Dy. CIT 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming 10% of the total