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

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.

41. At the time of hearing, the Authorized Representative of the assessee submitted that he has withdrawing this ground of appeal, hence, the same is dismissed as withdrawn. 42. Ground No. 21 of the appeal of the assessee reads as under: “That the rent received has to be assessed as income from house property and deduction @ 30% of the gross

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.

41. At the time of hearing, the Authorized Representative of the assessee submitted that he has withdrawing this ground of appeal, hence, the same is dismissed as withdrawn. 42. Ground No. 21 of the appeal of the assessee reads as under: “That the rent received has to be assessed as income from house property and deduction @ 30% of the gross

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

property in question. Backed by his aforesaid observations, the A.O was of the view that as the total consideration of Rs. 1,81,25,000/- (supra) had accrued to the assessee during the year under consideration, therefore, the LTCG therein arising to him, i.e, as provided in Sec. 45 r.w Sec. 48 of the Act was liable to be brought

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

property in question. Backed by his aforesaid observations, the A.O was of the view that as the total consideration of Rs. 1,81,25,000/- (supra) had accrued to the assessee during the year under consideration, therefore, the LTCG therein arising to him, i.e, as provided in Sec. 45 r.w Sec. 48 of the Act was liable to be brought

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

41 has held that : “a bare reading of the 16 section 263 makes it clear that the pre-requisites to the exercise of jurisdiction by the Commissioner under the said provision is : (i)That the order passed by Assessing Officer is erroneous, and (ii)That it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 22.8 If either of the condition

SHRIMATI JATINDER KAUR(ALIAS AMRITA),JALANDHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JALANDHAR

In the result all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

41,000). In the reply dated 20/12/2018 it was explained that the father of the assessee had settled in Bahrain around 1960. He was manufacturing air conditioner components under the name of Arabian Source Manufacturing LLC. Copies of his audited annual accounts for the financial years ending 31/3/20114 to 31/3/2017 were filed and stand enclosed at page

SHRIMATI JATINDER KAUR ( ALIAS AMRITA),JALANDHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JALANDHAR

In the result all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

41,000). In the reply dated 20/12/2018 it was explained that the father of the assessee had settled in Bahrain around 1960. He was manufacturing air conditioner components under the name of Arabian Source Manufacturing LLC. Copies of his audited annual accounts for the financial years ending 31/3/20114 to 31/3/2017 were filed and stand enclosed at page

SHRIMATI JATINDER KAUR (ALIAS AMRITA),JALANDHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JALANDHAR

In the result all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

41,000). In the reply dated 20/12/2018 it was explained that the father of the assessee had settled in Bahrain around 1960. He was manufacturing air conditioner components under the name of Arabian Source Manufacturing LLC. Copies of his audited annual accounts for the financial years ending 31/3/20114 to 31/3/2017 were filed and stand enclosed at page

THE DY. COMMISSIONER INCOME-TAX, JAMMU vs. M/S. THE JAMMU & KASHMIR BANK LTD,, SRINAGAR

In the result, the ground No

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

41,850/- u/s 40(a)(ia) on account of non-deduction of interest paid to JDA by relying on the submission of the assessee that no tax was required to be deducted on interest of FDR of JDA which has been incorporated by Govt, of J&K under J&K development Act and ignoring the fact that

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, JAMMU, SRINAGAR vs. MESERS JAMMU & KASHMIR BANK LIMITED , SRINAGAR

In the result, the ground No

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

41,850/- u/s 40(a)(ia) on account of non-deduction of interest paid to JDA by relying on the submission of the assessee that no tax was required to be deducted on interest of FDR of JDA which has been incorporated by Govt, of J&K under J&K development Act and ignoring the fact that

THE JAMMU AND KASHMIR BANK LIMITED,SRINAGAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, JAMMU

In the result, the ground No

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

41,850/- u/s 40(a)(ia) on account of non-deduction of interest paid to JDA by relying on the submission of the assessee that no tax was required to be deducted on interest of FDR of JDA which has been incorporated by Govt, of J&K under J&K development Act and ignoring the fact that

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, JAMMU vs. MESERS JAMMU & KASHMIR BANK LIMITED , SRINAGAR

In the result, the ground No

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

41,850/- u/s 40(a)(ia) on account of non-deduction of interest paid to JDA by relying on the submission of the assessee that no tax was required to be deducted on interest of FDR of JDA which has been incorporated by Govt, of J&K under J&K development Act and ignoring the fact that

THE DY. COMMISSIONER INCOME-TAX, JAMMU vs. M/S. THE JAMMU & KASHMIR BANK LTD,, SRINAGAR

In the result, the ground No

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

41,850/- u/s 40(a)(ia) on account of non-deduction of interest paid to JDA by relying on the submission of the assessee that no tax was required to be deducted on interest of FDR of JDA which has been incorporated by Govt, of J&K under J&K development Act and ignoring the fact that

ASSISTANT COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-1, JAMMU vs. MESERS JAMMU & KASHMIR BANK LIMITED , SRINAGAR

In the result, the ground No

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

41,850/- u/s 40(a)(ia) on account of non-deduction of interest paid to JDA by relying on the submission of the assessee that no tax was required to be deducted on interest of FDR of JDA which has been incorporated by Govt, of J&K under J&K development Act and ignoring the fact that

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX , CIRCLE -1,, JAMMU vs. THE JAMMU & KASHMIR BANK LTD.,, SRINAGAR

In the result, the ground No

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

41,850/- u/s 40(a)(ia) on account of non-deduction of interest paid to JDA by relying on the submission of the assessee that no tax was required to be deducted on interest of FDR of JDA which has been incorporated by Govt, of J&K under J&K development Act and ignoring the fact that

BALBIR SINGH GORAYA,BATALA vs. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, AMRITSAR.

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

House No. 1043, Range-II VillageChah Bohrawalla Amritsar Batala [PAN: AMUPG1406C] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sh. Tarun Bansal, Advocate Respondent by: S/sh. Rahul Dhawan, CIT-DR & Rohit Mehra, D.R Date of Hearing: 21.12.2021 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

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