M/S LORD MAHAVIRA HOMEOP[ATHIC MEDICAL COLLEGE & HOSPITAL ,LUDHIANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- ( EXEMPTIONS), JALANDHAR

In the result the 2nd ground raised by the assessee is liable to be allowed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

71- 81, after considering the arguments from both the sides had considered this issue at length and the finding has been given at page 79 and 80 in para 14 of the judgment, where in the judgment of the Apex Court has been followed. Similar is the judgment placed at pages 82 to 83. Page 37-45. There is even

M/S LORD MAHAVIR HOMEOPATHIC MEDICAL COLLAGE & HOSPITAL,LUDHIANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- ( EXEMPTIONS), JALANDHAR

In the result the 2nd ground raised by the assessee is liable to be allowed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

71- 81, after considering the arguments from both the sides had considered this issue at length and the finding has been given at page 79 and 80 in para 14 of the judgment, where in the judgment of the Apex Court has been followed. Similar is the judgment placed at pages 82 to 83. Page 37-45. There is even

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

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

2,62,32,509/- and as per physical verification amounted to Rs. 3,12,00,410/-. Stocks were excess by Rs. 49,67,901/-. There was difference in valuation of building also, building as per books amounted to Rs. 51,23,155/- whereas as per valuation report it amounted to Rs.1,40,00,000/- giving difference

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)

section 80G(2)(B), the Central Government notifies places of public worship owing to their historical, archaeological, or artistic importance. The following Gurudwaras due to their historical importance have been notified u/s 80G(2)(B) by the Central Government. 1. Gurudwara Harminder Sahib, SO 1974, Dated 19.06.1965. 2. Gurudwara DukhNiwaran Sahib, SO 885, Dated 31.12.1975. 3. Gurudwara Shri Hemkunt Sahib

SMT. INDERMEET BAINS W/O SH. D.S. BAINS,BATHINDA vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , BATHINDA

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

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

71 Taxmann.com 273, wherein the order u/s 263 was set aside, since the Ld. Assessing Officer had examined the issue in depth and that judgment has been upheld by the Hon’ble Apex Court in a decision, reported in 77 Taxmann.com 15 and it was held that, where the view has been taken by the Assessing Officer, after making proper/requisite

SHRIMATI RAVINDER BAWA,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(3), JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Laliet Kumar & Dr. M. L. Meena

properties Private Ltd. Vs. CIT 109 ITR 229 are also relevant. “Where assessment order is in accordance with law, it cannot be termed to be erroneous, C.I.T Vs. Ashoka Traders SLP Civil no. 2374-2375 of 1995 dismissed by the Supreme Court 212 ITR (ST) 369.” 23. It was submitted that the observations of Principal Commissioner of Income

SHRI BRIJINDERPAL SINGH BHULLAR,MOHALI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- 1 (3), BATHINDA

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

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

71, Ward-1(3), Bathinda S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali [PAN: EFLPB 2067E] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sh. P. N. Arora, Adv. Respondent by : Sh. Trilochan Singh PS Khalsa, DR Date of Hearing: 24.12.2021 Date of Pronouncement: 21.02.2022 ORDER PER RAVISH SOOD, JM The present appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the respective orders passed by the Commissioner of Income

SHRI BARJINDERPAL SINGH BHULLAR,MOHALI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- 1 (3), BATHINDA

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

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

71, Ward-1(3), Bathinda S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali [PAN: EFLPB 2067E] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sh. P. N. Arora, Adv. Respondent by : Sh. Trilochan Singh PS Khalsa, DR Date of Hearing: 24.12.2021 Date of Pronouncement: 21.02.2022 ORDER PER RAVISH SOOD, JM The present appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the respective orders passed by the Commissioner of Income

SHRI GURBINDER SINGH MAHAL,AMRITSAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-IV ( 2), AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

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

71-74 stamp duty document no.174706 7. Copy of sale deed in the name of Harjit Singh dated 25/04/2013 75-78 stamp duty document no.556043 8. Copy of sale deed in the name of Harjit Singh dated 25/04/2013 79-82 stamp duty document no.556236 9. Copy of sale deed in the name of Harjit Singh dated 29/04/2013 83-86 stamp

SH. MANINDER SINGH CHEEMA,HOSHIARPUR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, HOSHIARPUR

In the result, the assessee appeal is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Laliet Kumar & Dr. M. L. Meenai.T.A. No. 702/Asr/2013 Assessment Year: 2009-10

section 71 of the Act, the losses can be set off against business income only , needful was not done, hence the income disclose during the survey for the cost incurred for development appellate is required to be treated as investment made outside the books of account and is required to be held as income from any other sources. Hence

SH. BARAT PAL SOOD,,PHAGWARA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,, PHAGWARA

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

house property Income at Rs.1,17,600/- and on account of undeclared bank interest Income at Rs.34,242/-, respectively. Accordingly, the AO 3 completed the assessment u/s.143(3) of the Act dated 23.12.2011 assessing total income at Rs.22,55,590/-. 4. Feeling aggrieved from the assessment order, the assessee appealed before the CIT(A) and the CIT(A) partly allowed

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

SHRI KASHMIRA SINGH,FEROZEPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR

In the result, the particular issue u/s 153C of the Act related in ITA

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

property without giving proper opportunity of being heard to assessee. 3. That assessee request to add or amend any ground of appeal before the appeal is finally heard and disposed off”. 4.3. The ld. CIT(A) adjudicated the issue in favour of the revenue after calling remand report from the AO under Rule 46A of the IT Rule

SHRI RAVI NARULA ,FEROZE PUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTER CIRCLE , AMRITSAR

In the result, the particular issue u/s 153C of the Act related in ITA

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

property without giving proper opportunity of being heard to assessee. 3. That assessee request to add or amend any ground of appeal before the appeal is finally heard and disposed off”. 4.3. The ld. CIT(A) adjudicated the issue in favour of the revenue after calling remand report from the AO under Rule 46A of the IT Rule

M/S. PINKU BATRA ,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, JALANDHAR

In the result, the particular issue u/s 153C of the Act related in ITA

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

property without giving proper opportunity of being heard to assessee. 3. That assessee request to add or amend any ground of appeal before the appeal is finally heard and disposed off”. 4.3. The ld. CIT(A) adjudicated the issue in favour of the revenue after calling remand report from the AO under Rule 46A of the IT Rule

MEASAGE GURU NANAK MILK PRODUCTS ,FEROZEPUR CANTT vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR

In the result, the particular issue u/s 153C of the Act related in ITA

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

property without giving proper opportunity of being heard to assessee. 3. That assessee request to add or amend any ground of appeal before the appeal is finally heard and disposed off”. 4.3. The ld. CIT(A) adjudicated the issue in favour of the revenue after calling remand report from the AO under Rule 46A of the IT Rule

MEASAGE GURU NANAK MILK PRODUCTS,FEROZEPUR CANTT vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR

In the result, the particular issue u/s 153C of the Act related in ITA

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

property without giving proper opportunity of being heard to assessee. 3. That assessee request to add or amend any ground of appeal before the appeal is finally heard and disposed off”. 4.3. The ld. CIT(A) adjudicated the issue in favour of the revenue after calling remand report from the AO under Rule 46A of the IT Rule

MEASAGE GURU NANAK MILK PRODUCTS ,FEROZEPURCANTT vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1, JALANDHAR

In the result, the particular issue u/s 153C of the Act related in ITA

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

property without giving proper opportunity of being heard to assessee. 3. That assessee request to add or amend any ground of appeal before the appeal is finally heard and disposed off”. 4.3. The ld. CIT(A) adjudicated the issue in favour of the revenue after calling remand report from the AO under Rule 46A of the IT Rule