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

Housing Infra Pvt. Ltd., respectively and the return of income was filed on 31.01.2020, declaring total income 3 I.T.A. No.557/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2019-20 of Rs.67.53 lacs under the head 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

SHRI ADARSH KUMAR NAGPAL,ABOHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2 (3), ABOHAR

The appeal of the assessee is disposed of in the terms indicated as above

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

house Property (Rs.1,38,375+3,75,194) and income from other sources (Rs.3,80,981) which is evident from the computation of income forming part of paper book –II at Pg. 296-298. Addition

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

income as that of original return i.e. Rs.4,44,040/- on 29.04.2018 and filed all the documents called for during Suman Sabharwal v. ACIT the assessment proceedings. The AO being not satisfied with the submission of assessee made disputed addition on account of unexplained expenditure on renovation of in cash u/s 69C of the Act, on the renovation

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

income as that of original return i.e. Rs.4,44,040/- on 29.04.2018 and filed all the documents called for during Suman Sabharwal v. ACIT the assessment proceedings. The AO being not satisfied with the submission of assessee made disputed addition on account of unexplained expenditure on renovation of in cash u/s 69C of the Act, on the renovation

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

income as that of original return i.e. Rs.4,44,040/- on 29.04.2018 and filed all the documents called for during Suman Sabharwal v. ACIT the assessment proceedings. The AO being not satisfied with the submission of assessee made disputed addition on account of unexplained expenditure on renovation of in cash u/s 69C of the Act, on the renovation

MR.VISHAL BATRA,`LUDHIANA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

house property'. However, this is not an allowable deduction under the head 'capital gains’ as claimed by the assessee under the garb of Expenditure on Transfer'. Therefore, 5 Vishal Batrav. Dy. CIT in view of the clear cut provision providing for deduction of the Interest amount out of rental income, and there being no provision for deduction of this amount

DASHMESH TIMBER AND FURNITURE HOUSE,AJNALA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, AMRITSAR

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

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Krinwant Sahay

additional income surrendered is on account of business income over and above the normal business profits and vide the surrender letter it was stated that the same is being done voluntarily to buy peace , and the said surrender was duly accepted by the survey team and eventually the AO has also accepted the said surrender in scrutiny proceedings

SHRI MOHAMMAD YAQOOB DAR,SRINAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -3 (2), SRINAGAR

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

additional evidence being filed in terms of rule 46A. Further the assessee stated in his reply that the property has been purchased by the Son of the assessee (Farooq Ahmad Dar) who is a government employee and is regularly filing his return of income. The assessee is the Second/Joint owner of the property. The property has been funded from housing

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

House property, Income from Business/Profession” and ‘Income from other sources”. Though, the nature of activities in both the proprietorship concerns is same i.e. wholesale trading of products of “Haldiram’s” but in M/s Pioneer Sales, the gross profit has been shown @ 3.47% whereas in M/s Apex Marketing it is 4%. The AO has failed to verify the reasons for difference

SHRI SUBASH GUPTA,JAMMU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, JAMMU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

house property and other source income by way of bank interest. Apart from above the assessee is engaged in the business of purchase and sales of immovable properties and investment in immovable property are held as stock in trade and reflected in audited balance sheet and income tax returns year to year. 4. Return of income filed in regular course

M/S RAJINDER KOUL HUF,SRINAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3 (2), SRINAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing I

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

house property" and accordingly charged to income-tax as the income of that previous year in which such rent is received, whether the assessee is the owner of that property in that year or not.]” 5.1 But the assessee had taken yearwiserent in each & every year in the return of income.The list with copy of ITRs from assessment years

HIMANI GOYAL SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, BATHINDA

The appeal stand allowed

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member), SHRI UDAYAN DAS GUPTA (Judicial Member)

additional income from other sources, withdrew claim of house property loss and also withdrew claim of deduction under Chapter VIA. The Ld. AO accepted

HIMANI GOYAL SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, BATHINDA

The appeal stand allowed

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member), SHRI UDAYAN DAS GUPTA (Judicial Member)

additional income from other sources, withdrew claim of house property loss and also withdrew claim of deduction under Chapter VIA. The Ld. AO accepted

HIMANI GOYAL SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, BATHINDA

The appeal stand allowed

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member), SHRI UDAYAN DAS GUPTA (Judicial Member)

additional income from other sources, withdrew claim of house property loss and also withdrew claim of deduction under Chapter VIA. The Ld. AO accepted

HIMANI GOYAL SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, BATHINDA

The appeal stand allowed

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member), SHRI UDAYAN DAS GUPTA (Judicial Member)

additional income from other sources, withdrew claim of house property loss and also withdrew claim of deduction under Chapter VIA. The Ld. AO accepted

HIMANI GOYA SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, BATHINDA

The appeal stand allowed

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member), SHRI UDAYAN DAS GUPTA (Judicial Member)

additional income from other sources, withdrew claim of house property loss and also withdrew claim of deduction under Chapter VIA. The Ld. AO accepted

INDIAN TOOLS TECHNOLOGY CENTRE ,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFICER WARD II(1), JALANDHAR

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

addition, while ruling out the assessee's claim as not maintainable under section 57(iii), without appreciating the AO's standpoint and assessee's contentions thereon, in correct perspective; that the "Grant in aid" neither being "unconditional" nor being the property of the assessee, the interest earned on grant in aid was also not the property of assessee, and therefore

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

In the result, the appeal of the revenue, ITA No 90/Asr/2020 is dismissed

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

income of the assessee. So, the addition is quashed. 14.1 Related to the investment in property Rs.1.45 crore. The assessee submitted the details of payment on basis of “Half Proposal” but purchased of 5 acre of land from Sh. Kewal Singh and 3 acre 13 marla from Sh. Narinder Singh, the detail of payment is extracted as below: I.T.A. No.51/Asr/2020