SMT. SATYAWATI MARWAHA THROUGH LEGAL HEIR SH. CHANDER SHEIKHAR MARWAHA,JALANDHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal for Asstt

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

capital gain without considering the fact that assessee was a regular investor and has not invested in only one share. 5. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Hon'ble CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld. AO in making an addition of Rs.15

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

capital gain, if any was assessable in AY 2006-07, which claim had been accepted by his predecessor to delete the addition made in AY 2005-06, now the contentions raised by assessee were totally misleading and contrary to facts. 4. The assessee had relied upon a plethora of under noted cases, wherein the findings/directions were elaborately explained

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

SMT. ZEENAB,SRINAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(3),, SRINAGAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue Department stands dismissed, whereas the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes on the aforesaid reasons stated above

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N.K.Choudhry

Capital Gains and deletion of Rs. 7,00,000/- on account of unexplained investment. (Asst. Year: 2008-09) 4.1 Having

ITO, WARD- 3(3), SRINAGAR vs. SMT. ZEENAB, BEMINA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue Department stands dismissed, whereas the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes on the aforesaid reasons stated above

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N.K.Choudhry

Capital Gains and deletion of Rs. 7,00,000/- on account of unexplained investment. (Asst. Year: 2008-09) 4.1 Having

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

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

unexplained investment as per the provisions of section 69 of the I. T. Act. 6. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, no addition for undisclosed investment can be made merely relying on the third party statement and evidence which has been retracted. 7. That the evidences relied upon by the AO for framing assessment were never confronted

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

capital gains I.T.A. No. 197/Asr/2023 5 Assessment Year: 2018-19 u/s 45 of the Act for the above said assessment year. Further the assessee has under reported its income in consequence to misreporting thereof, therefore, necessary penalty proceedings u/s 270A/274 are initiated separately in this case for the assessment year under reference.” 5.1 In the appeal order page

MOHMMAD. MUZAFFAR. BEIGH,,SRINAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(5), SRINAGAR

In the result, the grounds No

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

unexplained initial investment in share trading business and Rs.2,00,000/- on account of undisclosed short term capital gain cannot

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

investment by the assessee for her share was Rs.5,49,800/- and accordingly the assessee declared long term capital gain of Rs.2,92,224/-. It is further mentioned by the AO that during the search, a diary was found and seized as Annexure A-9 from the residence of the assessee and page-13 of this diary has noting that

SMT. GURJEET KAUR,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- IV (2),, JALANDHAR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our

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

unexplained investment. But then, on a careful perusal of the assessment order, we find, that the A.O had triggered the provisions of Sec. 69, for the reason, that the assessee had deposited the on-money in the bank accounts of her husband, viz. Shri. Kulwant Singh. However, as we have already vacated the view taken by the lower authorities that

SMT. GURJEET KAUR,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- IV (2),, JALANDHAR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our

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

unexplained investment. But then, on a careful perusal of the assessment order, we find, that the A.O had triggered the provisions of Sec. 69, for the reason, that the assessee had deposited the on-money in the bank accounts of her husband, viz. Shri. Kulwant Singh. However, as we have already vacated the view taken by the lower authorities that

SHRI SATBIR SINGH BHULLAR,AMRITSAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- 5 (4), AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

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

Unexplained investments (Immovable I.T.A. No.258/Asr/2022 17 Assessment Year: 2008-09 COCHIN BENCH property) - Assessment year 2010-11 - Where cashdeposited in bank account of Smt.SuryakalaGopakumar assessee was explained from sale proceeds v. of her husband's property and assessee's husband, a NRI, had declared said sale Income tax Officer, Ward-4, consideration and paid capital gain

SH. GURJINDER SINGH,AMRITSAR vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1, AMRITSAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

unexplained income. 24.10.2016 Letter received from Haldiram Mfg Co Pvt Ltd Gurgaon as per which Nil balance shown in the assesee’s account opening and closing balance 10.11.2016 Counsel appeared. Furnished the written submissions to show cause notice and furnished copy of Cash A/c. Asked to explain the discrepancies with books of accounts. Explanation with narration cash withdrawn not explained

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, AMRITSAR. vs. SHRI BALJINDERR SINGH CHAHAL, AMRITSAR.

In the result, the appeal of revenue ITA No

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No.434/Asr/2016 Assessment Year: 2009-10

unexplained investment by the assessee from his undisclosed sources made in purchase of land from various persons/farmers by holding that “the AO has not brought any evidence on record to show that the appellant had purchased the land from various persons/ farmers on agreements/ikrarnamas or power of attorney in his name and later transferred the same to M/s Horizon Buildcon

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

In the result, the appeal of revenue ITA No

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No.434/Asr/2016 Assessment Year: 2009-10

unexplained investment by the assessee from his undisclosed sources made in purchase of land from various persons/farmers by holding that “the AO has not brought any evidence on record to show that the appellant had purchased the land from various persons/ farmers on agreements/ikrarnamas or power of attorney in his name and later transferred the same to M/s Horizon Buildcon

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

Unexplained investments (Immovable property) - Assessment year 2010-11 - Where cashdeposited in bank account of assessee was explained from sale proceeds of her husband's property and assessee's husband, a NRI, had declared said sale consideration and paid capital gain

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

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

unexplained and claim of the assessee of Long Term Capital Loss of Rs.14,30,248/-, as shown in thecomputation of income, has been accepted without inquiry which would have been Long Term Capital 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

SH. GURBACHAN SINGH BRAR,MOGA vs. ITO, WARD - 1,, MOGA

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

unexplained and claim of the assessee of Long Term Capital Loss of Rs.14,30,248/-, as shown in thecomputation of income, has been accepted without inquiry which would have been Long Term Capital 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

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