M/S ACTIVE TOOLS (P). LIMITED,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -II, JALANDHAR

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

property cannot be presumed to be out of income from business. Further, even the declaration of additional income in the return was not voluntary by the Assessee but as a result of survey u/s 133 conducted by the Department where the said excess cash, stock and investment was noticed and confronted to which the Assessee could give no explanation

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

house property, profits and gains of business or profession, or capital gains, nor is it income from "other sources" because the provisions of sections 69.69A, 69B and 69C meat unexplained investment, unexplained money, bullion, etc., and unexplained expenditure as deemed income where the nature and source of investment, acquisition or expenditure, as the case may be, have not been

SH. DIDAR SINGH S/O SH. PREM SINGH,KAPURTHALA vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KAPURTHALA

In the result, the assessee succeeds

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N.K.Choudhryita No.542(Asr)/2016 Assessment Year:2008-09

properties done jointly by Sh. Mohan Lal Bajaj and Sh. Des Raj and the appellant were found and impounded, however, from the document supplied by the Department it reveals that the Revenue Department while making the addition qua additional income of Rs.15 lacs, used two documents only that is one loose sheet of ledger where the name of appellant depicts

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

SHIROMANI GURDWARA PARBANDHAK COMMITTEE vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I,

In the result the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenav.S. Cit – I Shirmoni Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee Amritsar Teja Singh Mundri Hall Sri Amritsar Pan:Aants1981K (Appellant) (Respondent)

addition to the powers conferred upon the Board by this Act, the [control, direction and] general superintendence over all committees appointed under the provisions of this Act shall vest in the Board. 127-A. Collection of dues payable to notified Sikh Gurdwaras left in Pakistan. - (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMMU vs. M/S. JAMMU DEVELPMENT AUTHORITY,, JAMMU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of the department is dismissed

Bench: Sh. N. S. Saini & Sh. N. K. Choudhryita No. 498/Asr./2013 : Asstt. Year : 2005-06 Jammu Development Authority, Vs Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vikas Bhawan, Rail Head Tax, Circle-I, Complex, Jammu, J & K Jammu (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadfj7335A Ita No. 494/Asr./2013 : Asstt. Year : 2005-06 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vs Jammu Development Authority, Tax, Circle-I, Vikas Bhawan, Rail Head Jammu Complex, Jammu, J & K (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcp1720E Assessee By : Shri. R. K. Gupta, Ca & Shri. Vasu Gupta, Ca Revenue By : Shri. M. P. Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing :21.02.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.03.2019 Order Per N. S. Saini: These Are The Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee & Revenue Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Dated 06.05.2013, Jammu.

house property and deduction @ 30% of the gross amount is allowable under section 24 of the Income Tax Act, which is prayed to be allowed.” 43. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has observed as under: “4.9 Ground of Appeal No. 2.31 relates to treatment of rental income u/s 24 of the Act and allowance of 30% deduction. There

M/S. JAMMU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,,JAMMU ( J&K) vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMMU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of the department is dismissed

Bench: Sh. N. S. Saini & Sh. N. K. Choudhryita No. 498/Asr./2013 : Asstt. Year : 2005-06 Jammu Development Authority, Vs Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vikas Bhawan, Rail Head Tax, Circle-I, Complex, Jammu, J & K Jammu (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadfj7335A Ita No. 494/Asr./2013 : Asstt. Year : 2005-06 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vs Jammu Development Authority, Tax, Circle-I, Vikas Bhawan, Rail Head Jammu Complex, Jammu, J & K (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcp1720E Assessee By : Shri. R. K. Gupta, Ca & Shri. Vasu Gupta, Ca Revenue By : Shri. M. P. Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing :21.02.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.03.2019 Order Per N. S. Saini: These Are The Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee & Revenue Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Dated 06.05.2013, Jammu.

house property and deduction @ 30% of the gross amount is allowable under section 24 of the Income Tax Act, which is prayed to be allowed.” 43. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has observed as under: “4.9 Ground of Appeal No. 2.31 relates to treatment of rental income u/s 24 of the Act and allowance of 30% deduction. There

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 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

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

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

addition made by the AO on account of Short Term Capital Gain is deleted. Ground of appeal No. 5: The AO has denied the exemption u/s. 54F of the Income tax Act on the ground that the assessee had neither constructed any new house property

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

addition made by the AO on account of Short Term Capital Gain is deleted. Ground of appeal No. 5: The AO has denied the exemption u/s. 54F of the Income tax Act on the ground that the assessee had neither constructed any new house property

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

SHRI BILAS CHAND,BATHINDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD1(1), BATHINDA

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A. No. 399/Asr/2018 Assessment Year: 2016-17

income, the claim of the appellant u/s. 80C was already reduced by an amount of Rs. 44,860/- (150000- 105140) therefore the observations of the Assessing Officer making this addition are irrelevant. Similarly, in the return dated 08/08/2017, there is no further claim either u/s. 80E or in respect of house property

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