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

200/- by the ld. first appellate authority. 4. Brief facts emerging from records are that the assessee has inherited immovable properties (residential house) on the death of his father in the year 1991, (through will). One of the properties is situated at Joshi Colony, Amritsar, which was purchased by the father of the assessee on 18.07.1962 for Rs.10

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

section 69 of the Act against the payment of Motor Vehicle Tax on behalf of the business concern. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in making the addition relating to the rent received in cash. 4. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in making addition of Rs. 2,00,000/- on account of personal savings. 5. That

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

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

200/- of which cost was Rs. 90,62,903/-(cost of land and proportionate share of development cost) which resulted in gross loss of Rs. 41,84,703/-. Page 10 of paper book. 5. That during assessment proceedings assessee was asked to justify loss claimed at Rs. 44.70,775/- and assessee explained vide his letter dated 26.12.2011. Page

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

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, AMRITSAR. vs. SH. SHIV RAJ SINGH BAWA, AMRITSAR.

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is allowed and the assessee’s CO, dismissed

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 407/Asr/2016 Assessment Year: 2012-13

Housing Corporation v. CIT [2010] 326 ITR 642 (SC)). Section 40A(3) reads as under: ‘Expenses or payments not deductible in certain circumstances. 40A. (3) Where the assessee incurs any expenditure in respect of which a payment or aggregate of payments made to a person in a day, otherwise than by an account payee cheque drawn on a bank

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

property is purchased in the hope that when sold later on it would leave a margin of profit, would not be sufficient to show an intention to trade at the inception." 21. The Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana in the case of ‘CIT Vs. Harjit Singh Sangha’, (2013) 37 taxmann.com 63 upheld the finding of the Tribunal

SH. INDERJEET SINGH ARORA,BATHINDA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, BATHINDA

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A No.310/Asr/2014 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Inderjeet Singh Arora, Vs. Ito, Ward-1(1), Standard Sweet Corner, Bathinda. Bibiwala Road, Bathinda. [Pan: Advpa 0985G] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Sh. P.N. Arora (C.A) Respondent By: Sh. Charan Das (D.R) Date Of Hearing : 22.10.2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.12.2018 Order Per Sanjay Arora, A.M. This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Directed Against The Order By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Bathinda (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) Dated 08.01.2014, Dismissing The Assessee’S Appeal Contesting His Assessment U/S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 ('The Act' Hereinafter) For Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2008-09 Vide Order Dated 20.12.2010. 2. The Appeal Is Delayed By A Period Of 21 Days. The Reason Stated In The Condonation Petition Dated 06/8/2016 By The Assessee Is The Non-Communication Of The Impugned Order, Served On His Counsel, Sh.Pankaj Arora, On 17/2/2014, In Time. The Explanation Appears Bona Fide & The Delay Cannot Be Said To Be Substantial. The Delay Was Accordingly Condoned & The Hearing In The Matter Proceeded With.

section is, under the circumstances, and even as observed by the Bench during hearing, of no consequence in terms of the trite law [refer, inter alia, L. Hazari Mal Kathulia v. ITO [1961] 41 ITR 12 (SC); Isha Beevi v. TRO [1975] 101 ITR 449 (SC); Namdev Arora v. CIT [2016] 389 ITR 434 (P&H); and CIT v. Hargopal

SH. KIRPAL SINGH,KAPURTHALA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, KAPURTHALA

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

Bench: Shri L.P. Sahu, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.167/Asr/2017 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2010-2011) Sh. Kirpal Singh, Vs. Ito, Kapurthala-1, S/O Ravel Singh, Kapurthala H.No.644, Guru Nanak Nagar, Kapurthala स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Panno. : Bsyps 8252 D (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Sandeep Vijh, Ca राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Charan Dass, Dr

200,000 to Rs. 50,000 only. Copy of the statement of Sh. Pishor Singh is enclosed at page no. 6 to ~. Attention is drawn to the decision of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. Amar Chand & Sons. Copy of the decision is enclosed at page no. 30 to 32 (please see page

SUMAN CHHABRA,JAMMU AND KASHMIR vs. WARD 1(1), JAMMU, JAMMU AND KASHMIR

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

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Hybrid Hearing) I.T.A. No. 191/Asr/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18

House No. 38, R.S. Pura, Jammu Jammu. and Kashmir. [PAN:-ALDPC6995Q] (Respondent) (Appellant) Sh. Rohit Kapoor, CA. & Sh. V. S. Appellant by Aggarwal, ITP Respondent by Sh. Charan Dass, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 08.09.025 Date of Pronouncement 26.09.2025 ORDER Per: Udayan Dasgupta, J.M.: This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of ld. CIT (A), passed

SHRI DEEPAK PAL SINGH,HOSHIARPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-1, HOSHIARPUR

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A. No. 75/Asr/2018 Assessment Year: 2011-12

200/- toward business profit. The assessee had, further, acquired a plot of land (measuring 5 Marlas, 15 sq. ft.) at Village Khawaspur, Tehsil and Distt. Hoshiarpur, on Special Power of Attorney (SPA) basis on 07.01.2011 from one, Gurudev Singh, the General Power of Attorney (GPA) holder for Smt. Harsharan Kaur, copy of which (SPA) was furnished. Summons were issued

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, SAMBA vs. SH. ASHOK KUMAR SHARMA, SAMBA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in Ground nos

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No.475/Asr/2016 Assessment Year: 2013-14

property, cannot be satisfactorily explained by the assessee, it is open to the revenue to hold that it is the income of the assessee and no further burden lies on the revenue to show that the income is from any particular source. 5. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) was right in fact in deleting the addition of Rsl6

M/S. BRIGHT ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD.,JALANDHAR vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JALANDHAR

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

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Hon’Ble & Sh. Ravish Soodita No.354/Asr./2014 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No.126/Asr./2015 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 M/S Bright Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Mbd House, Railway Road, Tax, Central Circle-Ii, Jalandhar Jalandhar (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacb9469K Assessee By : Sh. Sudhir Sehgal, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Pawan K. Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 08.01.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.01.2019 Order Per N. K. Saini: These Two Appeals By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Orders Dated 08.05.2014 & 15.01.2015 Of The Ld. Cit(A)-5, Ludhiana For The Assessment Years 2010-11 & 2012-13 Respectively. 2. Since, The Issues Involved Are Common & The Appeals Were Heard Together, So These Are Being Disposed Off By This Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity.

200. However, the bills and copies furnished by the assessee had shown the number of magazines at 18000 to 20000 which was unreasonable and incomprehensive. The AO accepted that the magazines were very important for hotel industry but was of the view that even if various kinds of magazines were provided ITA No. 354/Asr./2014 6 Bright Enterprises

M/S BRIGHT ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD,,JALANDHAR vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JALANDHAR

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

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Hon’Ble & Sh. Ravish Soodita No.354/Asr./2014 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No.126/Asr./2015 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 M/S Bright Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Mbd House, Railway Road, Tax, Central Circle-Ii, Jalandhar Jalandhar (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacb9469K Assessee By : Sh. Sudhir Sehgal, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Pawan K. Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 08.01.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.01.2019 Order Per N. K. Saini: These Two Appeals By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Orders Dated 08.05.2014 & 15.01.2015 Of The Ld. Cit(A)-5, Ludhiana For The Assessment Years 2010-11 & 2012-13 Respectively. 2. Since, The Issues Involved Are Common & The Appeals Were Heard Together, So These Are Being Disposed Off By This Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity.

200. However, the bills and copies furnished by the assessee had shown the number of magazines at 18000 to 20000 which was unreasonable and incomprehensive. The AO accepted that the magazines were very important for hotel industry but was of the view that even if various kinds of magazines were provided ITA No. 354/Asr./2014 6 Bright Enterprises