SH. RAMAN KUMAR AGGARWAL,GURDAS PUR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

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

capital gain claim in the returns which are the subject matter of the present appeal. This court has considered the submissions of the parties. Aside from the fact that the findings in this case are entirely concurrent –A.O., CIT(A) and the ITAT have all consistently rendered adverse findings – what is intriguing is that the company (M/s Kappac Pharma

SMT. DEEPTI AGGARWAL,GURDAS PUR vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

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

capital gain claim in the returns which are the subject matter of the present appeal. This court has considered the submissions of the parties. Aside from the fact that the findings in this case are entirely concurrent –A.O., CIT(A) and the ITAT have all consistently rendered adverse findings – what is intriguing is that the company (M/s Kappac Pharma

SH.GAURAV AGGARWAL,GURDAS PUR vs. DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

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

capital gain claim in the returns which are the subject matter of the present appeal. This court has considered the submissions of the parties. Aside from the fact that the findings in this case are entirely concurrent –A.O., CIT(A) and the ITAT have all consistently rendered adverse findings – what is intriguing is that the company (M/s Kappac Pharma

M/S RAMAN KUMAR AGGARWAL,GURDASPUR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER .OF. INCOME. TAX , AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

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

capital gain claim in the returns which are the subject matter of the present appeal. This court has considered the submissions of the parties. Aside from the fact that the findings in this case are entirely concurrent –A.O., CIT(A) and the ITAT have all consistently rendered adverse findings – what is intriguing is that the company (M/s Kappac Pharma

ISHAR INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELPOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,BATHINDA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, BATHINDA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Hybrid Hearing) I.T.A. No. 686/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2022-23

Capital IQ (India) (P.) Ltd. vs. ACIT, 158 taxmann.com 12 (Hyd. Trib). Nehru Memorial Education Society vs. ITO (Exemp.) 161 taxmann.com 312 (Cochin Trib.). 7. Regarding the claim of unabsorbed depreciation brought forward amounting to Rs.1,50,49,432/- the Ld AR submitted that the first appellate authority has denied the set off observing that no adjustment was made

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

capital gains, nor is it income from ’other sources' because the provisions of sections 69, 69A, 69B and 69C treat unexplained investments, unexplained money, bullion, etc., and unexplained expenditure as deemed income where the nature and source of investment, acquisition or expenditure, as the case may be, have not been explained or satisfactorily explained. Therefore, in these cases, the source

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 assessee as exempt income under RFCTLAAR Act on the basis that the circumstances in which the appellant had purchased the land as highlighted by the AO in his order are not at all relevant to decide on the issue of taxability of the award and as soon as the award satisfies the conditions mandated under section

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3, SRINAGAR vs. M/S TRUMBO CEMENT INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED, SRINAGAR

In the result, the Ground no-1 of the Revenue for ITA No

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

Gain or Loss from the sale transaction of the land I.T.A. No.123/Asr/2020 11 I.T.A. No.124/Asr/2020 by the Directors, had to be examined by the A.O, in their returns or by reopening of the assessments under section 148 which had not been done within the prescribed time and now the Assessing Officer cannot add that notional income in the hands

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3, SRINAGAR vs. M/S TRUMBO CEMENT INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED , SRINAGAR

In the result, the Ground no-1 of the Revenue for ITA No

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

Gain or Loss from the sale transaction of the land I.T.A. No.123/Asr/2020 11 I.T.A. No.124/Asr/2020 by the Directors, had to be examined by the A.O, in their returns or by reopening of the assessments under section 148 which had not been done within the prescribed time and now the Assessing Officer cannot add that notional income in the hands

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

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee is allowed

setting aside the order due to the fact that the order passed u/s\n143(3) was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue, in view of\nprovisions contained in explanation 2 to section 263(1) in as much as the assessing\nofficer had failed to conduct inquiries and verification in respect of the source of\nfunds for making

LATE. SH. GURMAIL. SINGH. S/O. SH. LAL SINGH,SRI MUKATSAR vs. DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -II, BATHINDA

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

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

loss under the head capital gains which, in the opinion of Ld. AO, was assessable under the head business income. However, the basic condition viz. furnishing of inaccurate particulars / concealment of particulars of income so as to attract the provisions of Section 271(l)(c) have remained unfulfilled in the present case. Therefore, penalty was not justified and the stand

LATE. SH. GURMAIL SINGH.S/O. LATE SH. LAL SINGH,SRI MUKTSAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -II, BATHINDA

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

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

loss under the head capital gains which, in the opinion of Ld. AO, was assessable under the head business income. However, the basic condition viz. furnishing of inaccurate particulars / concealment of particulars of income so as to attract the provisions of Section 271(l)(c) have remained unfulfilled in the present case. Therefore, penalty was not justified and the stand

LATE. SH. GUMAIL SINGH . S/O. SH. LAL SINGH,MUKTSAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -II, BATHINDA

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

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

loss under the head capital gains which, in the opinion of Ld. AO, was assessable under the head business income. However, the basic condition viz. furnishing of inaccurate particulars / concealment of particulars of income so as to attract the provisions of Section 271(l)(c) have remained unfulfilled in the present case. Therefore, penalty was not justified and the stand

LATE. SH. GURMAIL. SINGH S/O. SH. LAL SINGH,SHRI MUKAT SAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF 9INCOME TAX. CIRCLE -II, BATHINDA

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

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

loss under the head capital gains which, in the opinion of Ld. AO, was assessable under the head business income. However, the basic condition viz. furnishing of inaccurate particulars / concealment of particulars of income so as to attract the provisions of Section 271(l)(c) have remained unfulfilled in the present case. Therefore, penalty was not justified and the stand

LATE. SH. GURMAIL SINGH S/O. SH. LAL SINGH,SRI MUKATSAR vs. DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -II, BATHINDA

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

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

loss under the head capital gains which, in the opinion of Ld. AO, was assessable under the head business income. However, the basic condition viz. furnishing of inaccurate particulars / concealment of particulars of income so as to attract the provisions of Section 271(l)(c) have remained unfulfilled in the present case. Therefore, penalty was not justified and the stand

SH. ARASHPREET SINGH S/O LATE SH. GURMAIL SINGH,SHRI MUKATSAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-II, BATHINDA

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

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

loss under the head capital gains which, in the opinion of Ld. AO, was assessable under the head business income. However, the basic condition viz. furnishing of inaccurate particulars / concealment of particulars of income so as to attract the provisions of Section 271(l)(c) have remained unfulfilled in the present case. Therefore, penalty was not justified and the stand

SH. ARSPREET SINGH . S/O. LATE. SH. GURMAIL SINGH ,MUKTSAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE .II, BATHINDA

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

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

loss under the head capital gains which, in the opinion of Ld. AO, was assessable under the head business income. However, the basic condition viz. furnishing of inaccurate particulars / concealment of particulars of income so as to attract the provisions of Section 271(l)(c) have remained unfulfilled in the present case. Therefore, penalty was not justified and the stand

SH. ARASHPREET SINGH S/O. LATE SH. GURMAIL SINGH,MUKTSAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CERCLE- II, BATHINDA

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

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

loss under the head capital gains which, in the opinion of Ld. AO, was assessable under the head business income. However, the basic condition viz. furnishing of inaccurate particulars / concealment of particulars of income so as to attract the provisions of Section 271(l)(c) have remained unfulfilled in the present case. Therefore, penalty was not justified and the stand