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

133A was carried out at the premises of M/s Satguru Foundation on 18.02.2014 (AY 2014-15) who was running a College at its premise. Sh. Gurmail Singh was an ordinary member of the Foundation and was not a key member. 3. During the above survey, Arshpreet agreed to disclose additional income of Rs. 1.40 crores and Gurmail Singh agreed

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

133A was carried out at the premises of M/s Satguru Foundation on 18.02.2014 (AY 2014-15) who was running a College at its premise. Sh. Gurmail Singh was an ordinary member of the Foundation and was not a key member. 3. During the above survey, Arshpreet agreed to disclose additional income of Rs. 1.40 crores and Gurmail Singh agreed

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

133A was carried out at the premises of M/s Satguru Foundation on 18.02.2014 (AY 2014-15) who was running a College at its premise. Sh. Gurmail Singh was an ordinary member of the Foundation and was not a key member. 3. During the above survey, Arshpreet agreed to disclose additional income of Rs. 1.40 crores and Gurmail Singh agreed

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

133A was carried out at the premises of M/s Satguru Foundation on 18.02.2014 (AY 2014-15) who was running a College at its premise. Sh. Gurmail Singh was an ordinary member of the Foundation and was not a key member. 3. During the above survey, Arshpreet agreed to disclose additional income of Rs. 1.40 crores and Gurmail Singh agreed

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

133A was carried out at the premises of M/s Satguru Foundation on 18.02.2014 (AY 2014-15) who was running a College at its premise. Sh. Gurmail Singh was an ordinary member of the Foundation and was not a key member. 3. During the above survey, Arshpreet agreed to disclose additional income of Rs. 1.40 crores and Gurmail Singh agreed

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

133A was carried out at the premises of M/s Satguru Foundation on 18.02.2014 (AY 2014-15) who was running a College at its premise. Sh. Gurmail Singh was an ordinary member of the Foundation and was not a key member. 3. During the above survey, Arshpreet agreed to disclose additional income of Rs. 1.40 crores and Gurmail Singh agreed

SH. ARASHPREET 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

133A was carried out at the premises of M/s Satguru Foundation on 18.02.2014 (AY 2014-15) who was running a College at its premise. Sh. Gurmail Singh was an ordinary member of the Foundation and was not a key member. 3. During the above survey, Arshpreet agreed to disclose additional income of Rs. 1.40 crores and Gurmail Singh agreed

SH. ARASHPREET 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

133A was carried out at the premises of M/s Satguru Foundation on 18.02.2014 (AY 2014-15) who was running a College at its premise. Sh. Gurmail Singh was an ordinary member of the Foundation and was not a key member. 3. During the above survey, Arshpreet agreed to disclose additional income of Rs. 1.40 crores and Gurmail Singh agreed

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

133A was carried out at the premises of M/s Satguru Foundation on 18.02.2014 (AY 2014-15) who was running a College at its premise. Sh. Gurmail Singh was an ordinary member of the Foundation and was not a key member. 3. During the above survey, Arshpreet agreed to disclose additional income of Rs. 1.40 crores and Gurmail Singh agreed

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

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee is allowed

133A(1) of the Act dated\n08/02/2019, where there has been a clear finding of the survey team ( in col- 15 of\nthe report) \"Assessee has been found in the practice of purchase/ sales out of\nbooks of accounts\", to put forth his argument that the assessee is not engaged in any\nother business, other than cosmetics and the excess

M/S. WORLDWIDE FOURTUNE HOMES ,KATHUA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAMMU

In the result, appeal of the assessee ITA No

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

survey was conducted U/s 133A in assessee’s premises. The department found two transactions the assessee received the amount of Rs.10 lacs from Dr. Vikas Goldy against sales of property including Rs.3 lac received from Mr. Kirti. The ld. AR for the assessee during assessment primarily denied the transaction of the I.T.A. No. 197/Asr/2023 3 Assessment Year: 2018-19 assessee

BHUPENDRA FLOUR MILLS PVT LTD,BATHINDA vs. ITO, WARD 1(1), BATHINDA, BATHINDA

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of out above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Shri Udayandasgupta, Jm आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.54/Asr/2025 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) M/S Bhupendra Flour Mills Pvt Ltd. Ito Ward - 1(1) बनाम/ Railway Road Central Revenue Building Bhatinda, Punjab – 151001 Civil Lines, Bhatinda Vs. Punjab - 151001 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaccb-6192-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) - Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Farhat Khan (Cit) – Ld. Dr (Virtual) सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05-02-2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 20.02.2026 : आदेश / O R D E R

capital gains. (iv) A conjoint reading of Section 2(24), Section 2(28A), Section 4, Section 10(37), Section 14, Section 45(5), Section 56(2)(viii), Section 145B(1) and Section 194LA of the Act makes it abundantly clear that any income which arises or is deemed to arise or accrue in India is chargeable

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

capital gains , which was ultimately assessed , with an addition of Rs.2.05 cores u/s 69 of the Act, on the basis of suspicion of alleged on money payment relating to purchase of a plot of land , information flowing from impounded document Annexure A – 3. 4. The assessee’s husband Mr. Anil Kapahi and her two sons Mr. Akhil Kapahi

SHRIMATI SUMAN SBHARWAL,JALANDHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, JALANDHAR

In the result, all the captioned three appeals of the assessee are

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

survey under s. 133A in the premises of the Suman Sabharwal v. ACIT assessee certain incriminating documents were found including a 'slip pad' containing payment of wages to various persons—Stand of the assessee was that the same did not represent payment of wages during the year in question but were for the earlier year—CIT(A) as well

SHRIMATI SUMAN SABHARWAL,JALANDHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JALANDHAR

In the result, all the captioned three appeals of the assessee are

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

survey under s. 133A in the premises of the Suman Sabharwal v. ACIT assessee certain incriminating documents were found including a 'slip pad' containing payment of wages to various persons—Stand of the assessee was that the same did not represent payment of wages during the year in question but were for the earlier year—CIT(A) as well

SHRIMATI SUMAN SABHARWAL,JALANDHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JALANDHAR

In the result, all the captioned three appeals of the assessee are

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

survey under s. 133A in the premises of the Suman Sabharwal v. ACIT assessee certain incriminating documents were found including a 'slip pad' containing payment of wages to various persons—Stand of the assessee was that the same did not represent payment of wages during the year in question but were for the earlier year—CIT(A) as well