INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1),FEROZEPUR, FEROZEPUR vs. MS.JATIN AGRO, FORT ROAD

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Physical Hearing) I.T.A. No. 103 & 104/Asr/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2017-18 Ito, Ward-3(1), Vs. M/S Jatin Agro Fort Road, Ferozepur. 152-P, Ferozepur. [Pan:-Aarpm5393F] (Appellant) (Respondent) Sh. Ashray Sarna, Ca Appellant By Respondent By Sh. Sunil Gautam, Cit. Dr

House Property The assessee was not continuing the activity of construction of godowns and letting them out from year to year. The assessee had not undertaken any such systematic business activity of construction of godowns and letting them out as business property. Merely because the assessee had entered into an agreement with PUNGRAIN would not mean that the assessee

MAX FINANCIAL SERVICE LIMITED ,NAWANSHAHR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is therefore partly allowed

house property” and consequential claim of depredation under section 32 of the Act, being supported by various decisions of the High Courts could not have been termed as erroneous. 9. Without prejudice to the above, the PCIT failed to appreciate that business expenditure as claimed by the Appellant for the purposes of carrying its business activities having a direct nexus

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

house on the said land, however permission was not granted as there was no legal title over the said land. The J&K Govt. enacted a legislation i.e. J&K State vesting of ownership to occupants, Act 2001-07 (popularly known as Roshni Act) to give legal rights to the occupants and to generate income for State Govt

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

house on the said land, however permission was not granted as there was no legal title over the said land. The J&K Govt. enacted a legislation i.e. J&K State vesting of ownership to occupants, Act 2001-07 (popularly known as Roshni Act) to give legal rights to the occupants and to generate income for State Govt

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

sections, i.e., by mistake, and that he had revised his return accordingly on 17.7.2017 (refer para 5 of the assessment order). The said return, however, while retaining the claim for deduction u/s. 80C at Rs.1.50 lacs, altered that for deduction u/s. 80E to ‘Loss from house property’, at, though, the same sum of Rs.1,50,472, returning thus his income

SH. LALIT DEEWAN,JAMMU vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-2, JAMMU

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi. T. A. No. 453/Asr/2017 Assessment Year: 2013-14

section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' hereinafter) vide order dated 22.01.2016 for Assessment Year (AY) 2013-14. 2. The facts of the case in-so-far as are relevant are that the assessee sold an immovable property, being a plot of land (at Gattha Sohana, Haryana) during the 2 Lalit Dewan v. Dy. CIT relevant year

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

Section 24 of the IT Act, 1961 under the head 'income from 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

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

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.10,000/-. The second property is situated at Delhi which was also purchased by the father of the assessee on 16.05.1991 for Rs.9 lacs (nine

INDIAN TOOLS TECHNOLOGY CENTRE ,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFICER WARD II(1), JALANDHAR

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

Section 37(1). The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that just as receipts, though not actual receipts but accrued due are brought in for Income Tax Assessment, so also liabilities accrued due would be taken into account while working out the profits and gains of the business. It is 11 noticed that this decision was in respect of Bonus

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

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

section 6(1) of the Act, therefore the said credit entries totalling to £ 1371.82 were I.T.A. No. 82/Asr/2016 8 & C.O. 11/Asr/2016 taxable in India in AY 2007-08 under the head “ Income from other sources” as their exact source arc not known. Accordingly, the source of credit of amounts of Rs 16,143,719/- and Rs 429,431.20 received

M/S RAJINDER KOUL HUF,SRINAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3 (2), SRINAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing I

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

section 25B is as below:- “[Special provision for arrears of rent received. 25B. Where the assessee— (a) is the owner of any property consisting of any buildings or lands appurtenant thereto which has been let to a tenant; and I.T.A. No.343/Asr/2018 4 (b) has received any amount, by way of arrears of rent from such property, not charged to income

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 85A would be discharging and performing various religious duties, ceremonies in connection with the gurdwaras along with efficient management of property and income of Gurdwaras and endowments thereof . 22. Now the question arises whether a statutory body which is created by the Statutory for the purpose of performing religious duties, administration of properties, income and endowment, can be said

ESTATE OF SH. JAGIR SINGH BHULLAR,AMRITSAR. vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, TARN TARAN

In the result, the appeals of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Choudhry, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.306/Asr/2014 & 591/Asr/2015 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Estate Of Sh. Jagir Singh Bhullar Vs. Income Tax Officer, Through S. Jasbir—Singh Ward-1(3), Bhullar, Tarn Taran, E-250 Ranjit Avenue, Amritsar, Punjab. Punjab.

section 53A of Transfer of Property Act. 8. That Ld AO has misapplied the facts and law in treating future and uncertain and unquantifiable benefits as so called consideration for alleged transfer and accordingly he has valued non existent property benefits for levy of capital gains. 9. That, the impugned agreement with the builders/ developers had been canceled

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, TARN TARAN vs. ESTATE OF LATE SH. JAGIR SINGH BHULLAR, TARN TARAN

In the result, the appeals of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Choudhry, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.306/Asr/2014 & 591/Asr/2015 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Estate Of Sh. Jagir Singh Bhullar Vs. Income Tax Officer, Through S. Jasbir—Singh Ward-1(3), Bhullar, Tarn Taran, E-250 Ranjit Avenue, Amritsar, Punjab. Punjab.

section 53A of Transfer of Property Act. 8. That Ld AO has misapplied the facts and law in treating future and uncertain and unquantifiable benefits as so called consideration for alleged transfer and accordingly he has valued non existent property benefits for levy of capital gains. 9. That, the impugned agreement with the builders/ developers had been canceled

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. ANISH BHAN,JAMMU vs. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, JAMMU

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee bearing ITA No

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No.28/Asr/2023 Assessment Year: 2001-02

house property. But the ld. AO during assessment made addition and completed the assessment on substantive basis in the hands of father- in-law. On the other hand, the protective assessment was completed in the hands of son in law. Later, the son in law retracted from his statement and submitted that Rs.26,40,100/- on account as cash seized