SHRI PAWAN KUMAR,JALANDHAR CANTT vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR

In the result, the bunch of appeals are allowed

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

142(1) from time to time and the assessment was completed vide order passed u/s 153C for the AY 2014-15 to 2019-20. During the assessment proceedings, it was noticed that certain salary income were not considered while filing the original return of income. However, the same were considered by way of filing revised computation on year to year

SHRI PAWAN KUMAR ,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR

In the result, the bunch of appeals are allowed

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

142(1) from time to time and the assessment was completed vide order passed u/s 153C for the AY 2014-15 to 2019-20. During the assessment proceedings, it was noticed that certain salary income were not considered while filing the original return of income. However, the same were considered by way of filing revised computation on year to year

SHRI PAWAN KUMAR,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR

In the result, the bunch of appeals are allowed

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

142(1) from time to time and the assessment was completed vide order passed u/s 153C for the AY 2014-15 to 2019-20. During the assessment proceedings, it was noticed that certain salary income were not considered while filing the original return of income. However, the same were considered by way of filing revised computation on year to year

SHRI PAWAN KUMAR,JALANDHAR CANTT vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR

In the result, the bunch of appeals are allowed

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

142(1) from time to time and the assessment was completed vide order passed u/s 153C for the AY 2014-15 to 2019-20. During the assessment proceedings, it was noticed that certain salary income were not considered while filing the original return of income. However, the same were considered by way of filing revised computation on year to year

SMT. PRITPAL KAUR,LUDHIANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 4(3), JALANDHAR

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

u/s 271F of IT Act amounting to Rs.5,000. The assessee filed appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) but CIT (A) has confirmed the penalty on two grounds. 1. That the AR of appellant appear before the AO in the penalty proceedings but has not mentioned about the sale of the property at which the appellant was residing

DCIT, CIRCLE-1, BATHINDA vs. DMR BUILDERS PVT LTD, BATHINDA

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed being devoid of merits

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Hybrid Hearing) I.T.A. Nos. 292 & 293/Asr/2024 Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18

section 145(3) of the Act 61 , with estimation of total income @ 8% on Gross receipts of Rs. 44.71 crores (excluding the receipts of Rs. 6.69 crores from DRAIPL group) and the disputed sub contract receipt of Rs. 6.69 crores has been separately added back u/s 68 of the Act 61. 7.2 The relevant paragraph of the order is reproduced

DCIT, CIRCLE-1, BATHINDA vs. DMR BUILDERS PVT LTD, BATHINDA

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed being devoid of merits

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Hybrid Hearing) I.T.A. Nos. 292 & 293/Asr/2024 Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18

section 145(3) of the Act 61 , with estimation of total income @ 8% on Gross receipts of Rs. 44.71 crores (excluding the receipts of Rs. 6.69 crores from DRAIPL group) and the disputed sub contract receipt of Rs. 6.69 crores has been separately added back u/s 68 of the Act 61. 7.2 The relevant paragraph of the order is reproduced

SHRI GURDAS GARG,BATHINDA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE- 1, BATHINDA

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and all the appeals

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

142(1) dated 28.08.2018 was specifically required to Rs.32.17 lakh as other interest related to its business activities. The assessee failed to Similarly, the assessee failed to explain how interest of Rs. 7.34 crore received from FDRs was related to its business activities. Under the circumstances, the assessee failed to prove that the amount of FDR interest amounting

MEASAGE GURDAS AGRO PRIVATE LIMITED,BATHINDA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE- 1 , BATHINDA

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and all the appeals

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

142(1) dated 28.08.2018 was specifically required to Rs.32.17 lakh as other interest related to its business activities. The assessee failed to Similarly, the assessee failed to explain how interest of Rs. 7.34 crore received from FDRs was related to its business activities. Under the circumstances, the assessee failed to prove that the amount of FDR interest amounting

MEASAGE G. G. OILS AND FATS PRIVATE LIMITED,BATHINDA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE- 1, BATHINDA

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and all the appeals

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

142(1) dated 28.08.2018 was specifically required to Rs.32.17 lakh as other interest related to its business activities. The assessee failed to Similarly, the assessee failed to explain how interest of Rs. 7.34 crore received from FDRs was related to its business activities. Under the circumstances, the assessee failed to prove that the amount of FDR interest amounting

MEASAGE G. G. CONTINENTAL TRADERS PRIVATE LIMITED,BATHINDA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, BATHINDA

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and all the appeals

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

142(1) dated 28.08.2018 was specifically required to Rs.32.17 lakh as other interest related to its business activities. The assessee failed to Similarly, the assessee failed to explain how interest of Rs. 7.34 crore received from FDRs was related to its business activities. Under the circumstances, the assessee failed to prove that the amount of FDR interest amounting

SHRI GURDAS GARG,BATHINDA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, BATHINDA

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and all the appeals

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

142(1) dated 28.08.2018 was specifically required to Rs.32.17 lakh as other interest related to its business activities. The assessee failed to Similarly, the assessee failed to explain how interest of Rs. 7.34 crore received from FDRs was related to its business activities. Under the circumstances, the assessee failed to prove that the amount of FDR interest amounting

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, BATHINDA vs. MEASAGE G.G.OILS AND FAITS PRIVATE LIMITED, BATHINDA

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and all the appeals

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

142(1) dated 28.08.2018 was specifically required to Rs.32.17 lakh as other interest related to its business activities. The assessee failed to Similarly, the assessee failed to explain how interest of Rs. 7.34 crore received from FDRs was related to its business activities. Under the circumstances, the assessee failed to prove that the amount of FDR interest amounting

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE- 1 , BATHINDA vs. MEASAGE G. G CONTINENTAL TRADERS PRIVATE LIMITED, BATHINDA

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and all the appeals

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

142(1) dated 28.08.2018 was specifically required to Rs.32.17 lakh as other interest related to its business activities. The assessee failed to Similarly, the assessee failed to explain how interest of Rs. 7.34 crore received from FDRs was related to its business activities. Under the circumstances, the assessee failed to prove that the amount of FDR interest amounting

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, BATHINDA vs. SHRI GURDAS GARG, BATHINDA

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and all the appeals

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

142(1) dated 28.08.2018 was specifically required to Rs.32.17 lakh as other interest related to its business activities. The assessee failed to Similarly, the assessee failed to explain how interest of Rs. 7.34 crore received from FDRs was related to its business activities. Under the circumstances, the assessee failed to prove that the amount of FDR interest amounting

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE- 1, BATHINDA vs. SHRI GURDAS GARG, BATHINDA

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and all the appeals

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

142(1) dated 28.08.2018 was specifically required to Rs.32.17 lakh as other interest related to its business activities. The assessee failed to Similarly, the assessee failed to explain how interest of Rs. 7.34 crore received from FDRs was related to its business activities. Under the circumstances, the assessee failed to prove that the amount of FDR interest amounting

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, BATHINDA vs. MEASAGE GURDAS AGRO PRIVATE LIMITED, BATHINDA

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and all the appeals

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

142(1) dated 28.08.2018 was specifically required to Rs.32.17 lakh as other interest related to its business activities. The assessee failed to Similarly, the assessee failed to explain how interest of Rs. 7.34 crore received from FDRs was related to its business activities. Under the circumstances, the assessee failed to prove that the amount of FDR interest amounting