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 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 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 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

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

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

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

3) The loss suffered on account of the sale of said shares had been duly disclosed in the audited financial statements as also the entire transaction had also been reported in the audited financial statements. 64. The Ld.Counsel for the assessee contended that accordingly complete disclosures were made by the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings and the issue

SH. RAJINDER KUMAR CHADHA,BEAS vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, AMRITSAR.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Choudhry & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.संसंसंसं././././I.T.A No.28/Asr/2017 िनधा"रणवष"/A.Y.:2003-04 िनधा"रणवष" िनधा"रणवष" िनधा"रणवष" Shri Rajinder Kumar Chadha, Vs. Income Tax Officer, K/105, Dera Baba Jaimal Singh, Ward-4(3) Amritsar Beas Pan:Abipc 5206 H अपीलाथ"Appellant अपीलाथ" ""यथ"/Respondent ""यथ" अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" ""यथ" ""यथ"

section 147 on 13.11.2002 by determining long-term capital gain on sale of two properties at Rs. 12,64,416. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before CIT (A). However, CIT (A) has confirmed the addition so made. Then the assessee filed an appeal before tribunal. The ITAT, Amritsar vide its order dated 20.05.2013 [ITA No.419/ASR/2012] directed

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

SHRI NACHHATER SINGH S/O SHRI GURBAKSH SINGH,BATHINDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICEER , BATHINDA

In the result all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. Laliet Kumar & Dr. M. L. Meena

3 and it has been mentioned in the reasons that the assessee had made certain transactions regarding the land sale, but no return has been filed and then it has been mentioned that the capital gain issue may arise and needs more enquiry. b). It is submitted for the purpose of 148, there has to be valid reason to believe

SHRI.BOOTA SINGH S/O. SH. NACHATER SINGH, BATHINDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(1), BATHINDA

In the result all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. Laliet Kumar & Dr. M. L. Meena

3 and it has been mentioned in the reasons that the assessee had made certain transactions regarding the land sale, but no return has been filed and then it has been mentioned that the capital gain issue may arise and needs more enquiry. b). It is submitted for the purpose of 148, there has to be valid reason to believe

SHRI BABBU SINGH S/O SHRI NACHHATER SINGH,BATHINDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICEER WARD-2(1), BATHINDA

In the result all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. Laliet Kumar & Dr. M. L. Meena

3 and it has been mentioned in the reasons that the assessee had made certain transactions regarding the land sale, but no return has been filed and then it has been mentioned that the capital gain issue may arise and needs more enquiry. b). It is submitted for the purpose of 148, there has to be valid reason to believe

SHRIMATI HARMOHINDER KAUR,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, OFFICER CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Sh. N.K.Choudhry & Dr. A.L.Sainiassessment Year: 2009-10

capital gain' taxable in the hands of the assessee at Rs.31,42,225/-. Therefore, under the facts and circumstances of the case, the addition of Rs. 28,50,001/- made by the AO is found sustainable and hence confirmed. Accordingly, these grounds of appeal are dismissed. 3. The assessee being aggrieved preferred the instant appeal. 4. Having heard the parties

SHRI RAMESH KUMAR ,BATHINDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(3), BATHINDA

Bench: Sh. Ravish Sood & Dr. M. L. Meena

3), Bathinda ITA No. 342/Asr/2019 – A.Y 2010-11 motto by ignoring section 55(2)(b) and 55A of Income Tax Act, respectively before calculating the Capital Gain and order of A.O require to be set-a-side. 10. That the Id.CIT(A) has erred in law, as well as ,on facts by holding the land in question as individual land

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

3-4): 47 G. G. Oils & Fats Pvt. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT Date Particulars Narration Debit Credit Closing Balance 01/04/2013 Opening Balance 27947593.00 Dr 27947593 09/04/2013 HDFC BANK Ch. No. : xxx 15/04/2013 HDFC BANK Ch. No. : xxx 04/05/2013 HDFC BANK Ch. No.: xxx 08/05/2013 HDFC BANK Ch. No.: xxx 13/05/2013 HDFC BANK 0.00 Ch. No.: xxx 23/05/2013 FLC INSURANCE

SHRI AVINASH CHANDER BHALLA,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFIER WARD 3(1), JALANDHAR

Bench: Sh. Ravish Sood & Dr. M. L. Meena

section 50C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and confirming the addition of Rs. 4,70,000/- made by the AO. 5. Any other ground which may be raised at the time of hearing.” 2. Controversy involved in the present appeal lies in a narrow compass i.e. as to whether or not the AO was justified in reopening the case