INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1),FEROZEPUR, FEROZEPUR vs. MS.JATIN AGRO, FORT ROAD

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Physical Hearing) I.T.A. No. 103 & 104/Asr/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2017-18 Ito, Ward-3(1), Vs. M/S Jatin Agro Fort Road, Ferozepur. 152-P, Ferozepur. [Pan:-Aarpm5393F] (Appellant) (Respondent) Sh. Ashray Sarna, Ca Appellant By Respondent By Sh. Sunil Gautam, Cit. Dr

152-P, Ferozepur. [PAN:-AARPM5393F] (Appellant) (Respondent) Sh. Ashray Sarna, CA Appellant by Respondent by Sh. Sunil Gautam, CIT. DR 16.12.2025 Date of Hearing Date of Pronouncement 15.01.2026 ORDER Per: Udayan Dasgupta, J.M.: Both these appeals are filed by the revenue against the orders of ld. CIT (A), NFAC, Delhi, passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961,( henceforth

SMT. AMITA NARANG,DELHI vs. THE DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMMU

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A. No. 385/Asr/2016 Assessment Year: 2007-08

152 (P&H)(FB). 4. I have heard the parties, and perused the material on record. 4.1 Section 48, which provides the manner of computation of capital gains chargeable u/s. 45 of the Act, reads as under in its relevant part: ‘48. Mode of computation. The income chargeable under the head “Capital gains” shall be computed by deducting from

MESERS MALWA MOTORS,BATHINDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3), BATHINDA

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A. No. 131/Asr/2018 Assessment Year: 2012-13

section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' hereinafter) for Assessment Year (AY) 2012-13 vide order dated 17.7.2015. 2. The facts of the case in brief are that the assessee, a firm in the business of sale and service of vehicles, returned its’ income for the year on 30/9/2012 at Rs.2625, setting off brought forward

MAX FINANCIAL SERVICE LIMITED ,NAWANSHAHR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is therefore partly allowed

section 263 ,as stated above, have still to be fulfilled for applying the explanation. The case laws holding so, as pointed out by the Ld.Counsel for the assessee are as under: i. Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. DCIT, ITA No.164/Ahd/2018, decision dated 08.08.2018. ii. Asian Homes Pvt. Ltd. Vs. PCIT (2012) 78 ITR (Trib) 240 (Mumbai). iii. Citystar Ganguly Projects

UNIVERSAL BIOMASS ENERGY PRIVATE LIMITED,GURUHARSAHAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(1), FEROZEPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Brajesh Kumar Singh

depreciation), and the same was I.T.A. No. 267/Asr/2024 3 Assessment Year: 2018-19 processed u/s 143(1) on 20th February, 2020, by CPC, Bangalore, by disallowing the claim u/s 80IA(4)(iv) of Rs.5,61,39,920/-, (in absence of any audit report in form 10CCB on record). 3.1 In between, the case was selected for complete scrutiny under