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

short “PCIT”), dated 25.02.2020 relating to assessment year 2015-16, passed in exercise of his revisionary jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as Act). 2 A.Y.2015-16 2. Briefly stated, the Ld. Pr.CIT while perusing the assessment record of the assessee pertaining to the impugned year noticed that the Assessing Officer (AO) had framed

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

gains, short-term or long-term, could be allowed, other than where incurred in connection with the transfer, is that incurred on the acquisition or improvement of the capital asset transferred, i.e., capital costs. Whether a particular cost qualifies to be a cost of acquisition, as the interest cost is claimed to be in the instant case, or cost

SH. RAJINDER KUMAR CHADHA,BEAS vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, AMRITSAR.

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

Bench: Shri N.K. Choudhry & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.संसंसंसं././././I.T.A No.28/Asr/2017 िनधा"रणवष"/A.Y.:2003-04 िनधा"रणवष" िनधा"रणवष" िनधा"रणवष" Shri Rajinder Kumar Chadha, Vs. Income Tax Officer, K/105, Dera Baba Jaimal Singh, Ward-4(3) Amritsar Beas Pan:Abipc 5206 H अपीलाथ"Appellant अपीलाथ" ""यथ"/Respondent ""यथ" अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" ""यथ" ""यथ"

short “the AO”). 2. Ground No.1 is against the issue of notice under section 148 of the Act that the notice is void-ab-initio. Rajinder Kumar Chadha v. ITO-Wd-4(3) Amritsar/I.T.A. No. 28/ASR/2017/A.Y.:03-04 Page 2 of 9 3. We have perused the relevant material on record. We find that the impugned assessment order was passed

SHRI AMRITPAL SINGH (PROP),JALANDHAR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- 1, JALANDHAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee ITA No

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

term capital gain and d education claimed u/s 54D along with documents. Please explain as to why the deduction claimed u/s 54D may not be disallowed and added to your income. Please furnish your reply with evidence. Keeping in view the above facts, your case is fixed for hearing on 18.11.2016 and you are requested to attend my office with

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

short intervals and large number of queries were raised in addition to the above questionnaire which were all duly replied by the appellant along with the necessary details and explanations. 4 The assessment proceeding which were initiated on 28.6.2016 got concluded on 15.12.2016 and during this period the AO required the assesee to submit large number of details and information

GMG HEALTHCARE PRIVATE LIMITED,JALANDHAR vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR

Bench: Shri L. P. Sahu & Shri Ravish Sood

short ‘D.R’) relied on the orders of the lower authorities. It was submitted by the Ld. D.R that as the assessee had failed to substantiate the subsistence of the impugned liabilities towards the aforementioned creditors, therefore, the lower authorities had rightly held the same as ceased liabilities within a meaning

ATC LOGISTICAL SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED ,DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, AMRITSAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee ITA No

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

capital expenditure33 or personal expenses of the assessee), laid out or expended wholly and exclusively33 for the purposes of the business33 or profession shall be allowed in computing the income chargeable under the head "Profits and gains of business or profession". 34[35[Explanation 1.]—For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that any expenditure incurred

M/S STEP BY STEP JUNIOR SCHOOL SOCIETY,AMRITSAR. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), CHANDIGARH

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

short coming in the Society's By-laws could be easily corrected to the satisfaction of the law. 5. That the Ld. CIT (Exemptions) has grossly erred by refusing the application, as such the order of Ld. CIT (Exemptions) is liable to be cancelled/annulled. 6. That all the facts, material and evidence furnished before the worthy CIT (Exemptions) have been