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

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

71 –No loss could be set off against cash surrendered as same had already been held to be taxed under different head—AO was hereby directed to set off business losses suffered by Assessee out of surrendered income except element of cash surrendered. 13. After receipt of the Assessee's reply, the proceedings u/s 154 were dropped by the assessing

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)

71,80,70,285.56 56,47,69,960.80 39. As the predominant purpose and object of the Assessee are to manage the property, do charitable activities by way of imparting / running educational institutions, organizing lunger, medical camp, hospital etc.; therefore, the activities of the Assessee could not be termed as being done only for the benefit of particular community/ religion

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

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

LORD MAHAVIRA HOMOEOPHATIC MEDICAL COLLEGE AND HOSPITAL ,LUDHIANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (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 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

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

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

house charges. 8.3. In the result Ground-2 of the revenue is allowed for statistical purpose. 9.Ground No. 3 of the revenue: - 3. The Ld. C1T(A), Jammu has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 74,31,428/- on account of depreciation of Wooden Partition by relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme court in case

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

house charges. 8.3. In the result Ground-2 of the revenue is allowed for statistical purpose. 9.Ground No. 3 of the revenue: - 3. The Ld. C1T(A), Jammu has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 74,31,428/- on account of depreciation of Wooden Partition by relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme court in case

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

house charges. 8.3. In the result Ground-2 of the revenue is allowed for statistical purpose. 9.Ground No. 3 of the revenue: - 3. The Ld. C1T(A), Jammu has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 74,31,428/- on account of depreciation of Wooden Partition by relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme court in case

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

house charges. 8.3. In the result Ground-2 of the revenue is allowed for statistical purpose. 9.Ground No. 3 of the revenue: - 3. The Ld. C1T(A), Jammu has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 74,31,428/- on account of depreciation of Wooden Partition by relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme court in case

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

house charges. 8.3. In the result Ground-2 of the revenue is allowed for statistical purpose. 9.Ground No. 3 of the revenue: - 3. The Ld. C1T(A), Jammu has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 74,31,428/- on account of depreciation of Wooden Partition by relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme court in case

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

house charges. 8.3. In the result Ground-2 of the revenue is allowed for statistical purpose. 9.Ground No. 3 of the revenue: - 3. The Ld. C1T(A), Jammu has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 74,31,428/- on account of depreciation of Wooden Partition by relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme court in case

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

house charges. 8.3. In the result Ground-2 of the revenue is allowed for statistical purpose. 9.Ground No. 3 of the revenue: - 3. The Ld. C1T(A), Jammu has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 74,31,428/- on account of depreciation of Wooden Partition by relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme court in case

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

71 to 76. (e) CIT vs. Deepak Kumar Agarwal - 398 ITR 586 (Bombay High Court): It was held that assessment u/s 153A can be made only on the basis of the incriminating material found in search and only income related to incriminating documents found during search can be considered in assessment. Copy of the order is 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

71 to 76. (e) CIT vs. Deepak Kumar Agarwal - 398 ITR 586 (Bombay High Court): It was held that assessment u/s 153A can be made only on the basis of the incriminating material found in search and only income related to incriminating documents found during search can be considered in assessment. Copy of the order is 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

71 to 76. (e) CIT vs. Deepak Kumar Agarwal - 398 ITR 586 (Bombay High Court): It was held that assessment u/s 153A can be made only on the basis of the incriminating material found in search and only income related to incriminating documents found during search can be considered in assessment. Copy of the order is enclosed at page