SH. SANTOKH SINGH BRAR,MOGA vs. ITO, WARD - 2,, MOGA

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

Gains of Rs.81,53,086/- instead of loss on account of transfer of long term capital asset. The Assessing Officer has not enquired even from the assessee the reasons for selling the property at a rate which would yield Long Term Capital Loss as a prudent person would not sell property the property which would yield losses. But, even

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

set aside by the Hon'ble ITAT, the ground has been taken by the appellant that no direction had been given by the CIT(A) in appellate order that for taxing the capital gains if any, in AY 2006-07. Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically held in a number of cases that order has to be read

SHRI SIMERDEEP SINGH,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Udayan Das Gupta, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No. 260/Asr/2022 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessmentyear: 2016-17) Shri Simerdeep Singh Dcit बनाम/ Vs. H. No. 833 Urban Estate Phase-I Central Circle-1 Jalandhar- 144001. Jalandhar. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Abrps-8245-F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/Appellant By : S/Shri J. S. Bhasin (Advocate)& A. P. Singh (Ca) –Ld.Ars ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondentby : Ms. Vandana Vijay Mohite (Cit) – Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 23-04-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 06-06-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

gains and denial of carry forward of capital losses. Having heard rival submissions and upon perusal of case records, the appeal is disposed- off as under. Assessment Proceedings 2.1 The assessee being resident individual returned loss of Rs.140.07 Lacs in his return of income filed u/s 139 on 03-03-2017. The assessee also declared Long-Term Capital loss

M/S ACTIVE TOOLS (P). LIMITED,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -II, JALANDHAR

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

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

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

set off losses other capital gain against income from other head. It was laid down in the decision of Madras

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

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. 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

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

SH. PARMINDER SINGH,KAPURTHALA vs. A.C.I.T, CENTRAL CIRCLE- I, JALANDHAR

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

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N.K.Choudhryita No.329(Asr)/2017 Assessment Year:2009-10

Loss Account, details of properties held as closing stock and relevant books of account. However, no such record was made available by the assessee. As the main source of income of assessee was from the sale and purchase of properties, therefore, it was held by Assessing Officer that the assessee is not entitled for indexation benefit in respect of business

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

set off the business losses can not be permitted against the income from any other source. For the above said proposition we may rely upon the decision of the Jurisdictional High Court in the matter of Kim Pharma (P.) Ltd. [2013] 35 taxmann.com 456 (Punjab & Haryana) , wherein it was held as under:- “4. Learned counsel for the assessee submitted that

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

SHRI KANAV KHANNA,,AMRITSAR. vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, AMRITSAR.

In the result, the ground no- G of appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

Capital Gain of Rs. 5,12,87,410/- in respect of 77 Maria from Khasra No. 1034/3 has been denied exemption and thereby Income Tax liability of Rs. 1,07,59,391/- has been demanded along with Education Cess of Rs.3,22,782/- besides interest of Rs. 5,04,468/- u/s 234B and Rs. 11,71,148/- u/s 234D

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMMU vs. M/S. JAMMU DEVELPMENT AUTHORITY,, JAMMU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of the department is dismissed

Bench: Sh. N. S. Saini & Sh. N. K. Choudhryita No. 498/Asr./2013 : Asstt. Year : 2005-06 Jammu Development Authority, Vs Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vikas Bhawan, Rail Head Tax, Circle-I, Complex, Jammu, J & K Jammu (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadfj7335A Ita No. 494/Asr./2013 : Asstt. Year : 2005-06 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vs Jammu Development Authority, Tax, Circle-I, Vikas Bhawan, Rail Head Jammu Complex, Jammu, J & K (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcp1720E Assessee By : Shri. R. K. Gupta, Ca & Shri. Vasu Gupta, Ca Revenue By : Shri. M. P. Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing :21.02.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.03.2019 Order Per N. S. Saini: These Are The Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee & Revenue Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Dated 06.05.2013, Jammu.

set practice in the execution of construction work that elements of agency commission his already included in the estimate prepared for the proposed work. Such commission is charged even by the Govt., department like CPWD. Accordingly the plea of the assessee that it has not charged any agency commission is not acceptable. Accordingly the agency commission on the amount Rs.6

M/S. JAMMU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,,JAMMU ( J&K) vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMMU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of the department is dismissed

Bench: Sh. N. S. Saini & Sh. N. K. Choudhryita No. 498/Asr./2013 : Asstt. Year : 2005-06 Jammu Development Authority, Vs Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vikas Bhawan, Rail Head Tax, Circle-I, Complex, Jammu, J & K Jammu (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadfj7335A Ita No. 494/Asr./2013 : Asstt. Year : 2005-06 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vs Jammu Development Authority, Tax, Circle-I, Vikas Bhawan, Rail Head Jammu Complex, Jammu, J & K (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcp1720E Assessee By : Shri. R. K. Gupta, Ca & Shri. Vasu Gupta, Ca Revenue By : Shri. M. P. Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing :21.02.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.03.2019 Order Per N. S. Saini: These Are The Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee & Revenue Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Dated 06.05.2013, Jammu.

set practice in the execution of construction work that elements of agency commission his already included in the estimate prepared for the proposed work. Such commission is charged even by the Govt., department like CPWD. Accordingly the plea of the assessee that it has not charged any agency commission is not acceptable. Accordingly the agency commission on the amount Rs.6

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