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

set off of losses as provided for under the normal provisions of the Act.” 12. In respect of the assessment year 2016-17, the assessee had filed the following written submission in support of its case:- “ This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of CIT(A), who had decided the case of the assessee exparte. Though

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, SRINAGAR vs. SH. SUHAIL AHMED BHAT, PROP. M/S SHIFA TRADERS, RANGPARISTAN, SRINAGAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue Department stands dismissed

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N.K.Choudhryita No.136(Asr)/2015 Assessment Year:2007-08

setting off the loss of the third unit with the other two units and therefore the reassessment on a mere

SHRI SHAM SUNDER AGGARWAL,KAPURTHALA vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -2 , KAPUTHALA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee, ITA

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

reassessment, in this case, was preceded by a regular assessment made earlier. 5. That the order under appeal is wholly against law and facts of the case.” 3. Brief fact is that the assessee is a proprietor of M/s P.K. & Company, Kapurthala was engaged in trading of paddy husk and also transportation of goods from the premises of Vendor

NASA AGRO INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,FAZILKA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-II, BATHINDA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

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

loss account to reduce profits. Reassessment proceedings commenced vide issue of notice u/s 148 dated 22nd 5. March, 2018 as per procedure (after necessary approval from higher authorities). Return filed in response to notice u/s 148 , was taken up for scrutiny and objections raised against recorded reasons has been disposed off. Notices issued u/s 142(1) raising various questioner

INCOME TAX OFFICER, 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

loss, there arised no question of setting it off against current year income. 3. During the previous year under consideration, it had earned Rs.6, 18, 29,857/-as rental income le income from a source other than from a specified business as per section 35AD of the Act. But, the treatment of rental income received from godown given on rent

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

loss, there arised no question of setting it off against current year income. 3. During the previous year under consideration, it had earned Rs.6, 18, 29,857/-as rental income le income from a source other than from a specified business as per section 35AD of the Act. But, the treatment of rental income received from godown given on rent

SH.SHREE GURU NANAK DEV QUIN-CENTENARY CELEBRATION COMMITTEE,LUDHIANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION), JALANDHAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri L.P. Sahu, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.238/Asr/2019 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं (िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year :2010-2011) िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Shree Guru Nanak Dev Vs. Ito(Exemptions) Ward, Quin-Centenary Celebrations Jalandhar Committee, Guru Nanak Bhawan, Ludhiana "थायी लेखा सं./Panno. : Aawfs 2431 F .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (" यथ" / Respondent) : Shri S.K.Mukhi, Advocate िनधा"!रती क" क" क" ओर क" ओर ओर सेसेसेसे /Assessee By ओर ओर सेसेसेसे /Revenue By : Shri M.P.Singh, Cit-Dr राज"व क" क" क" ओर क" ओर ओर सुनवाई क" तार'ख / Date Of Hearing : 06/02/2020 घोषणा क" तार'ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30/06/2020 आदेश आदेश / O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per L.P.Sahu, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Cit(A)-4, Ludhiana, Dated 08.02.2019, On The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- 1. That The Orders Of Ld. Cit(A) Is Illegal, Erroneous & Perverse & Thus Needs To Be Quashed. 2. That The Issuance Of Notice U/S 147/148 Is Bad In Law As No New Material Was There With The Ao To Initiate Action U/S 147 & The Proceedings In Furtherance Of Illegal Notice Are Void Ab-Initio & Deserve To Be Set Aside. 3. That The Addition Made By Ao & Partially Confirmed By Cit (A) Is Devoid Of Proper Appreciation Of Facts On Record & Against Express Provisions Of Law & Deserve To Be Set Aside. 4. That The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Amend Or Delete Any Of The Grounds Of Appeal On Or Before The Disposal Of The Present Appeal. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income On 15.06.2010 Declaring Total Income After Claiming Exemption

set aside. 4. That the appellant craves leave to add, amend or delete any of the grounds of appeal on or before the disposal of the present appeal. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income on 15.06.2010 declaring total income after claiming exemption 2 u/s.12AA r.w.s.11 of the Act, 1961. Thereafter

DIVAY MOHINDRU,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JALANDHAR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Hybrid Hearing) I.T.A. No. 129/Asr/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Divay Mohindru, Prop. M/S Vs. Ito, Ward 3(1), Mahavir Abhushans, Deep Jalandhar. Market Juakhana Bazar Kalan, Jalandhar. [Pan:-Advpm1552D] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Asharay Sarna, Ca. Sh. Charan Dass, Sr. Dr Respondent By Date Of Hearing 14.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 08.01.2026

loss account of balance, debtors and creditors list and complete set of books of account including cash book. 6.1 The ld. AR submitted that the AO has erred in law in rejecting the books and taking recourse of section 145(3) of the Act and he has raised objections regarding the part rejection of books as stated

PANKAJ JINDAL CONTRACTOR,MANSA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-I, BATHINDA, BATHINDA

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Physical Hearing) I.T.A. No. 695/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S Pankaj Jindal Contractor, Vs. Dcit-Circle-1, Near Vidya Bharti School, Bathinda. Mansa. [Pan:-Aajfp8008L] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Sudhir Sehgal, Adv. Respondent By Sh. Charan Dass, Sr. Dr

losses has made an addition of Rs.3.50 lakhs , which points to towards the fact that the AO has applied his mind in course of original proceedings and was fully satisfied that there has not been any cash payment to any single payee above the stipulated limit so as to attract the provisions of section 40A(3). I.T.A. No. 695/Asr/2024

SH. VARINDER KUMAR SOUL,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3(2), JALANDHAR

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 451(Asr)/2017 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Pan: Cvips 5218R

loss or the depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year): Provided ………. Provided further……… Provided also that the Assessing Officer may assess or reassess such income other than the income involving matters which

M/S NICE TELECOM,MANSA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(4), MANSA

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 153/Asr/2014 Assessment Year: 2007-08

set off qua the addition made (Rs.80,000/-) in assessment is allowed per the impugned reassessment, whereat the entire expenditure claimed under the heads ‘mobile repair’ and ‘recovery’ has been disallowed. We are, therefore, unable to accept the assessee’s plea of the reasons recorded as amounting to a change of opinion, without in any manner suggesting that, where

M/S. RAJ DEV ,KOTKAPURA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, FARIDKOT

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is allowed for statistical

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

losses as a result of which, the total income of the assessee was below than the maximum exemption limit. Hence, for the relevant year, the assessee did not file its return of income. However, during the course of the assessment proceedings, the assessee duly submitted a copy of the draft computation of income for AY 2017-18(APB, page

GURPAL SINGH SIDHU,NEAR GOVT SCHOOL vs. ITO WARD 1(2), BATHINDA, BATHINDA

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

Bench: Udayan Das Gupta & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2017-18]

loss and, therefore, he had not filed return of income, since Assessing Officer had not looked into objections raised by assessee and proceeded ahead, impugned reassessment notice was unjustified The facts of this case were entirely different than that of present case of the appellant. In the present case, the appellant could not explain source and nature of cash deposits

KAISER INDUSTRIES LIMITED,SAMBA vs. PRINCIPAL.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, SRINAGAR

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

reassessment proceeding and was satisfied that no income has escaped ITA Nos. 20&21/Asr/2021 7 Kaiser Industries Ltd. v. Pr.CIT assessment. The Ld. PCIT, Srinagar has set aside the order passed by Ld. A.O. u/s 143(3) read with section 147 of the I.T. Act, 1961 dated 20.12.2017 with the directions to the A.O to reframe the assessment de- novo

KAISER INDUSTRIES LIMITED ,SAMBA vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSONER OF INCOME TAX-1, SRINAGAR

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

reassessment proceeding and was satisfied that no income has escaped ITA Nos. 20&21/Asr/2021 7 Kaiser Industries Ltd. v. Pr.CIT assessment. The Ld. PCIT, Srinagar has set aside the order passed by Ld. A.O. u/s 143(3) read with section 147 of the I.T. Act, 1961 dated 20.12.2017 with the directions to the A.O to reframe the assessment de- novo

KUNDAN JEWELLERS PRIVATE LIMITED,GANDHI CHOWK, SADAR BAZAR, MUKTSAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2), MUKTSAR, MUKTSAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Krinwant Sahay

Loss Account wat incorrect which is evident from the fact that the Id. CIT(A) in his order passed on merits has found these bills to be relating to pure relating to purchase of fixed assets and has accordingly, made the disallowance of only depreciation relating to the same, which has not been challenged by the Revenue before

SH. KARAMJIT SINGH RAI,HOSHIARPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , HOSHIARPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. N.K.Choudhry & Dr. A.L.Saini

reassess such income and also any other income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment and which comes to his notice subsequently in the course of proceedings under this section, or recompute the loss or the depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the a.y. concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections

SH. PRATAP SINGH SAMRA,,AMRITSAR. vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, AMRITSAR.

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

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

reassess such income and also any other income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment and which comes to his notice subsequently in the course of the proceedings under this section, or recomputed the loss or the depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned” From the plain reading of the section