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

house property at Rs.75,600/-, short term capital loss at (Rs.30,618/-), income from bank interest at Rs.17,667/- and LTCG (long term capital gains) amounting to Rs.2,02, 30,196/- which has been claimed as exempt u/s 10(38) of the Act) . After a search operation u/s 132 of the Act 1961 carried out on 29th

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

house property at Rs.75,600/-, short term capital loss at (Rs.30,618/-), income from bank interest at Rs.17,667/- and LTCG (long term capital gains) amounting to Rs.2,02, 30,196/- which has been claimed as exempt u/s 10(38) of the Act) . After a search operation u/s 132 of the Act 1961 carried out on 29th

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

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR vs. M/S. SADHU SINGH HAMDARD TRUST, JALANDHAR

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

15) of the Act. (b) Regarding alleged violation of provisions of section 13(3) of the Act, the Hon’ble Tribunal observed that since there was no allegation that the payment made to specified persons were unreasonable or excessive, the provisions of section 13(3)(c) of the Act had no application at the very threshold. The relevant finding

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR vs. M/S. SADHU SINGH HAMDARD TRUST, JALANDHAR

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

15) of the Act. (b) Regarding alleged violation of provisions of section 13(3) of the Act, the Hon’ble Tribunal observed that since there was no allegation that the payment made to specified persons were unreasonable or excessive, the provisions of section 13(3)(c) of the Act had no application at the very threshold. The relevant finding

THE DCIT, JALANDHAR vs. M/S. SADHU SINGH HAMDARD TRUST, JALANDHAR

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

15) of the Act. (b) Regarding alleged violation of provisions of section 13(3) of the Act, the Hon’ble Tribunal observed that since there was no allegation that the payment made to specified persons were unreasonable or excessive, the provisions of section 13(3)(c) of the Act had no application at the very threshold. The relevant finding

M/S SADHU SINGH HAMDARD TRUST,JALANDHAR vs. THE ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR

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

15) of the Act. (b) Regarding alleged violation of provisions of section 13(3) of the Act, the Hon’ble Tribunal observed that since there was no allegation that the payment made to specified persons were unreasonable or excessive, the provisions of section 13(3)(c) of the Act had no application at the very threshold. The relevant finding

M/S. SADHU SINGH HAMDARD TRUST,JALANDHAR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR

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

15) of the Act. (b) Regarding alleged violation of provisions of section 13(3) of the Act, the Hon’ble Tribunal observed that since there was no allegation that the payment made to specified persons were unreasonable or excessive, the provisions of section 13(3)(c) of the Act had no application at the very threshold. The relevant finding

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,JALANDHAR vs. M/S. SADHU SINGH HAMDARD TRUST, JALANDHAR

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

15) of the Act. (b) Regarding alleged violation of provisions of section 13(3) of the Act, the Hon’ble Tribunal observed that since there was no allegation that the payment made to specified persons were unreasonable or excessive, the provisions of section 13(3)(c) of the Act had no application at the very threshold. The relevant finding

DCIT, JALANDHAR vs. M/S. SADHU SINGH HAMDARD TRUST, JALANDHAR

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

15) of the Act. (b) Regarding alleged violation of provisions of section 13(3) of the Act, the Hon’ble Tribunal observed that since there was no allegation that the payment made to specified persons were unreasonable or excessive, the provisions of section 13(3)(c) of the Act had no application at the very threshold. The relevant finding

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,JALANDHAR vs. M/S. SADHU SINGH HAMDARD TRUST, JALANDHAR

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

15) of the Act. (b) Regarding alleged violation of provisions of section 13(3) of the Act, the Hon’ble Tribunal observed that since there was no allegation that the payment made to specified persons were unreasonable or excessive, the provisions of section 13(3)(c) of the Act had no application at the very threshold. The relevant finding

M/S. SADHU SINGH HAMDARD TRUST,JALANDHAR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR

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

15) of the Act. (b) Regarding alleged violation of provisions of section 13(3) of the Act, the Hon’ble Tribunal observed that since there was no allegation that the payment made to specified persons were unreasonable or excessive, the provisions of section 13(3)(c) of the Act had no application at the very threshold. The relevant finding

M/S. SADHU SINGH HAMDARD TRUST,JALANDHAR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR

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

15) of the Act. (b) Regarding alleged violation of provisions of section 13(3) of the Act, the Hon’ble Tribunal observed that since there was no allegation that the payment made to specified persons were unreasonable or excessive, the provisions of section 13(3)(c) of the Act had no application at the very threshold. The relevant finding

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR vs. M/S. SADHU SINGH HAMDARD TRUST,, JALANDHAR

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

15) of the Act. (b) Regarding alleged violation of provisions of section 13(3) of the Act, the Hon’ble Tribunal observed that since there was no allegation that the payment made to specified persons were unreasonable or excessive, the provisions of section 13(3)(c) of the Act had no application at the very threshold. The relevant finding

INCOME TAX OFFICER, INCOME TAX OFFICE vs. VIKAS MEHRA, THE MALL

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed being devoid of

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

10. The ld. DR further submitted that as per Schedule AL of ITR, the cost of property should have been taken at cost as per provisions of the Act, and not as per market value which has been wrongly taken by the assessee and the difference in value being unexplained, has been rightly added back by the Assessing Officer

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

section 69 of the Act 1961. 11 I.T.A. No. 542/Asr/2024 Dashmesh Timber and Furniture House v. Dy. CIT 12. The AR further relying on the jurisdictional High court judgment in the case of Sudarshan Gupta, (2008) 10 DTR (P&H) 184, submitted that when an offer of surrender is being accepted by the department, the same should be accepted

GEETA VASHISTHA,TALWANDI BHAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -3 (1), FEROZEPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Udayan Das Gupta & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2018-19]

Housing Loan of Rs. 15 lacs through Union Bank of India vide Bank Draft no.35287057 dated 12.10.2017. But assessee in her reply dated 16.02.2023 has agreed to have sufficient cash at the time of purchase of immovable property but the source of which remain unexplained. From the above it is established that the assessee along with her husband has paid

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AMRITSAR. vs. SH. JAIMAL SINGH, L/H. SH. PREM CHAND,, TARN TARAN

In the result, the appeal bearing ITA No

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

15-06- 2007, which interalia comprised of the sale proceeds of his property sold in United Kingdom and his other income. Therefore, the credits of Rs 16,143,719/- and of Rs 429,431/- were not unexplained credits, but were from a definite source, namely the sale of house property by Sh Prem Chand in United Kingdom and his other