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

Short-Term Capital Loss are sold at low price. In the case of the assessee, it is further revealed from the assessment order that: a. The prices of the shares of M/s. Dhanleela Investment & Trading Co. Ltd. increased unrealistically without any corresponding movement in the normal share market. b. The shares were purchased by the assessee at very low price

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

reassessment proceedings u/s 147/148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. B. That the CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the verification letters u/s 133(6) were issued by the ITO Ludhiana who had no jurisdiction on the case of the assessee. C. That the CIT(A) has wrongly upheld the addition of Rs.15960000/- made by the ITO u/s 69 without

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

reassessment proceedings initiated u/s 147/148 by the AO were void ab-initio because the reasons recorded by the AO to issue notice u/s 148 are reasons to suspect and not reasons to believe. 4. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred on facts and law in confirming the taxability of Rs. 32,00,000/- as Long Term Capital Gain without allowing

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

reassessment proceedings initiated u/s 147/148 by the AO were void ab-initio because the reasons recorded by the AO to issue notice u/s 148 are reasons to suspect and not reasons to believe. 4. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred on facts and law in confirming the taxability of Rs. 32,00,000/- as Long Term Capital Gain without allowing

SHRI JASBIR SINGH ,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-I (2), JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Choudhry, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.426/Asr/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12)

short the ‘Act’) dated 27.12.2016. 2. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as follows: “1. That on the facts & circumstances of the case, Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [‘CIT(A)’], has grossly erred in holding that assessing officer has rightly assumed jurisdiction over the case and proceedings u/s 148 of the Act have been validly initiated

SMT. SATVIR KAUR W/O SH. SHINDER SINGH,FEROZEPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

Short Term Capital Gain, exemption u/s 10(36) of the Act, deduction u/s 57 of the Act and unsecured loans and the assessees furnished all the relevant documents which were examined by the AO who has taken a possible view. Therefore, it is our considered view that there was a due application of mind on the part

SHRI RAMESH KUMAR ,BATHINDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(3), BATHINDA

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

Term Capital Gain (“LTCG”, for short) on sale of the land in question. In reply, it was submitted by the assessee that he had sold his share [194,3/8 biswa part] in land [i.e 33 Bigha – 12 Biswa Kacha Nehri Berani] situated at Patti Jhutti within the Municipal Committee limits of Bathinda (Code

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

short of an allegation in the thin air, cannot be subscribed on our part. We, thus, in the backdrop of our aforesaid deliberations vacate the observations of the A.O that the alleged on-money received by the assessee on sale of the land in question was deposited by her in the bank accounts of her husband, viz. Shri. Kulwant Singh

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

short of an allegation in the thin air, cannot be subscribed on our part. We, thus, in the backdrop of our aforesaid deliberations vacate the observations of the A.O that the alleged on-money received by the assessee on sale of the land in question was deposited by her in the bank accounts of her husband, viz. Shri. Kulwant Singh

SH. JASPAL SINGH S/O SH. SWARAN SINGH,AMRITSAR. vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,, AMRITSAR.

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

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A. No. 445/Asr/2016 Assessment Year: 2004-05

short) dated 28.2.2016, dismissing the assessee’s appeal contesting his assessment u/s. 144 r/w s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' hereinafter) vide order dated 21.12.2011 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2004-05. 2. The appeal is delayed by a period of 87 days, having been filed on 29.08.2016 as against the due date

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, FARIDKOT, BSNL BUILDING vs. M/S VOHRA SOLVEX PVT. LTD, SADIQ ROAD

In the result, C.O. filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Krinwant Sahay

short, (UFC), Fazilka amounting to Rs.2,45,14,364/- (totaling Rs. 6,43,54,912/-) are bogus purchase entries. As per the information received by the AO, it was noted that Sh. Naresh Kumar, Proprietor of M/s Universal Food Corporation and Sh. Vijay Kumar, Proprietor of M/s Evergreen Sales Corporation 4 I.T.A. No. 588/Asr/2024 & Ors Vohra Solvex

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