SMT. SATYAWATI MARWAHA THROUGH LEGAL HEIR SH. CHANDER SHEIKHAR MARWAHA,JALANDHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal for Asstt

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

house property at Rs.75,600/-, short term capital loss at (Rs.30,618/-), income from bank interest at Rs.17,667/- and LTCG (long term capital gains

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

Short Term Capital Gain is deleted. Ground of appeal No. 5: The AO has denied the exemption u/s. 54F of the Income tax Act on the ground that the assessee had neither constructed any new house property

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

Short Term Capital Gain is deleted. Ground of appeal No. 5: The AO has denied the exemption u/s. 54F of the Income tax Act on the ground that the assessee had neither constructed any new house property

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

Term Capital Gain. 5. In appeal, the learned CIT (A) has confirmed the addition by observing as under: 4 Vishal Batrav. Dy. CIT The facts of the case, basis of addition/disallowance made by AO and the arguments of the AR during the course of appellate proceedings have been considered. The AR has submitted that the appellant purchased a residential house

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

termed as business income since there was specific head for assessing the rental income and had, therefore, held that the rental income was to be assessed under the head of ‘house property’ as provided in the Act. The Ld.Counsel for the assessee pointed out that the facts in the present case were totally different, with the assessee having rented

SMT. AMITA NARANG,DELHI vs. THE DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMMU

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A. No. 385/Asr/2016 Assessment Year: 2007-08

short-term capital gain (STCG) arising on its’ transfer, which in the present case is by way of sale of a house property

SH. PARMINDER SINGH,KAPURTHALA vs. A.C.I.T, CENTRAL CIRCLE- I, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N.K.Choudhryita No.329(Asr)/2017 Assessment Year:2009-10

short term capital gain and Rs.2,34,701/- from long term capital gain from the sale of property and plot. The main source of income of the assessee was from sale and purchase of properties and that of commissions. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee was asked to produce balance sheet, Profit & Loss Account, details of properties held

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

short term Capital gain of Rs. 26,72,454 on account of trading in shares " Issues of evidences related to agricultural income Copy of the notice u/s 263 is placed at pages 4 to 5 of the Paper Book. 4. Copy of the reply submitted to the PCIT u/s 263 ( Ist Revision) is placed at pages

SH.DIDAR SINGH,PHAGWARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, PHAGWARA

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

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

house and the Mall are enclosed herewith for your ready reference. Further the Sulkhan Ram has 7K 14M Agriculture Land in village Apra Tehsil Phillaur. Copy of Zamabandialongwith English translation is enclosed herewith. This clearly shows that Mr. Sulkhan Ram is a man having considerable wealth in his name and action for his benami deeds must be taken against

SHRIMATI HARMOHINDER KAUR,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, OFFICER CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Sh. N.K.Choudhry & Dr. A.L.Sainiassessment Year: 2009-10

short term capital gain' on account of sale of shop in MBD Mall. During the appellate proceeding for assessment year 2008-09 in appeal no. 24/IT/CIT(A)-5/Ldh/2014-15, the co-relation of entries and figures on different pages of the diary (seized annexure A-14) was elaborately discussed in relation to sale of shop no. S-9, MBD Neopolis

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

Term Capital Gain (“LTCG”, for short) had escaped assessment, reopened his case u/s 147 of the Act. Observing, that the Notice u/s 148 of the Act, dated 06.06.2012 could not be served upon the assessee because as per the report of the notice server of the department the assessee had left India and his present whereabouts were not available

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

Term Capital Gain (“LTCG”, for short) had escaped assessment, reopened his case u/s 147 of the Act. Observing, that the Notice u/s 148 of the Act, dated 06.06.2012 could not be served upon the assessee because as per the report of the notice server of the department the assessee had left India and his present whereabouts were not available

SMT. GURJEET KAUR,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- IV (2),, JALANDHAR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our

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

House Jalandhar Cantt Road, Jalandhar PAN: AIKPK 9383L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sh. Surinder Mahajan, CA Respondent by: Sh. Sunil Gautam, CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 22.12.2021 Date of Pronouncement: 21.02.2022 ORDER PER BENCH : The present appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the respective orders passed by the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-2, Jalandhar, dated 19.07.2017, which

SMT. GURJEET KAUR,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- IV (2),, JALANDHAR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our

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

House Jalandhar Cantt Road, Jalandhar PAN: AIKPK 9383L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sh. Surinder Mahajan, CA Respondent by: Sh. Sunil Gautam, CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 22.12.2021 Date of Pronouncement: 21.02.2022 ORDER PER BENCH : The present appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the respective orders passed by the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-2, Jalandhar, dated 19.07.2017, which

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

short) dated 31.03.2017, dismissing the assessee’s appeal contesting his assessment under 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

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

short) dated 24.5.2018, dismissing the assessee’s appeal contesting his assessment u/s. 143(3) read with s.147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' hereinafter) dated 09.3.2018 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2016-17. 2. The issue arising in the instant appeal is the maintainability of the assessee’s claims for deduction under sections

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

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

Capital gains'. Similarly, if a company purchases a rented house and gets rent, such rent will be assessable to tax under Section 22 as income from House property. Likewise, a company may have income from other sources. It may buy shares and get dividends. Such dividends will be taxable under Section 56 of the Act. The Company may also

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.

short-term capital gain (STCG). The assessee explained to have incurred Rs.2.89 lacs on the repairs/ improvement, and that therefore no income accrued as STCG, which plea, on account of it being unevidenced, was not accepted. The assessment was confirmed for the same reasons, i.e., the assessee’s case being wholly unsubstantiated, even as the ld. CIT(A) allowed relief

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