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

7. The appellant assesse being aggrieved with the Assessment Order, went in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who has granted relief to the assesse by observing as under: “12. I have considered the facts of the case, the basis of addition made by the Assessing Officer, the arguments of the AR on the issue during assessment

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

7. The appellant assesse being aggrieved with the Assessment Order, went in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who has granted relief to the assesse by observing as under: “12. I have considered the facts of the case, the basis of addition made by the Assessing Officer, the arguments of the AR on the issue during assessment

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

7. The appellant assesse being aggrieved with the Assessment Order, went in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who has granted relief to the assesse by observing as under: “12. I have considered the facts of the case, the basis of addition made by the Assessing Officer, the arguments of the AR on the issue during assessment

SHRI BRIJINDERPAL SINGH BHULLAR,MOHALI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- 1 (3), BATHINDA

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

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

94 and in the case of C.S Atwal Vs. CIT, Ludhiana (2015) 59 taxmann.com 359, had held, that capital gain was chargeable as per law on the amount of Rs. 32 lac or the amount actually received by the assessee during the year under consideration from the developer qua the sale deeds that have been executed, and as and when

SHRI BARJINDERPAL SINGH BHULLAR,MOHALI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- 1 (3), BATHINDA

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

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

94 and in the case of C.S Atwal Vs. CIT, Ludhiana (2015) 59 taxmann.com 359, had held, that capital gain was chargeable as per law on the amount of Rs. 32 lac or the amount actually received by the assessee during the year under consideration from the developer qua the sale deeds that have been executed, and as and when

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

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

7. Being aggrieved by the notice under section 148 dated 15-12-1981 for re- assessment as well as the Order of the ITO dated 24-3-1986, the assessee filed appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) [for short, 'the CIT(A)'], which was partly allowed. The assessee contended that since it received a sum of Rs.11

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, FARIDKOT, BSNL BUILDING vs. M/S VOHRA SOLVEX PVT. LTD, SADIQ ROAD

In the result, C.O. filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Krinwant Sahay

7. Now, the department is in appeal before the Tribunal on the grounds contained in Form No. 36. 8. The ld. DR argued that the ld. first appellate authority was not justified in limiting or restricting the addition to only Rs.5,86,710/- i.e., (1.2% only) instead of 100% addition which should have been made and confirmed

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

capital outlay. During the current year itself, it purchased fixed assets at Rs.471.77 lacs and repaid borrowings, meeting thus its’ contractual obligation/s in this regard, to the extent of Rs.180.97 lacs, i.e., at a total of Rs.652.74 lacs, which far exceeds the revenue (net income) generated at Rs.228.94 lacs during the year, i.e., even assuming the entire

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

7 (Delhi) has held as under: "A search was carried out at assessee's premises in course of which Assessing Officer seized certain letters/e-mail - On basis of said documents, Assessing Officer made addition to assessee's income on account of undisclosed salary Commissioner (Appeals) as well as Tribunal deleted addition holding that in absence of any corroborative material to link

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

94,05,033/- Business Profit @ 8% 752402 Deposit demonetization Income period Cash 09.11.2016 to 11,24,000/- Unexplained Unexplained 1124000 Deposit 31.12.2016 Money u/s Money u/s 69A 69A Total 1876402 7.3The additions made vide assessment order passed u/s 144 are bad in law as, the same is made on the basis of glaring mistakes ignoring the inter-bank transfers

M/S STEP BY STEP JUNIOR SCHOOL SOCIETY,AMRITSAR. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), CHANDIGARH

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

7. Decision of ITAT, Amritsar Bench, Amritsar in the case of The Managing Committee, Arya High School, Mansa vs. CIT(E) Chandigarh in ITA No. 469(ASR)/2016, order dated 11/08/2017 relating to AY 2015-16. [Refer Page No.135 to 142 of compilation of judgments]. 8. Decision of ITAT Amritsar Bench Amritsar in the case of Sant Ishwar Shiksha Samiti

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

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A. No. 597/Asr/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11

7,39,320/-. Since the kits were not successful the assessee delayed the payment. That earlier assessment years for AY 2008-09 and 2009-10 were framed u/s 143(3) and the relevant expenses claimed were allowed. The appellant submitted that the payments were being made in part from year to year as under:- A Y Amount 2009-10 Rs.2