SH. PUNEET SEHDEV PROP;,JAMMU vs. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER,, JAMMU

Bench: Shri L. P. Sahu & Shri Ravish Sood

section 2(24BA) of I.T.Act as under: “Manufacture” with its grammatical variations means a change in non-living physical object or article or thing:- a) Resulting in transformation of the object or article or thing into a new and distinct object or article or thing having a different name, character and use, or b) Bringing into existence

PUNEET SAHDEV,JAMMU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAMMU

Bench: Shri L. P. Sahu & Shri Ravish Sood

section 2(24BA) of I.T.Act as under: “Manufacture” with its grammatical variations means a change in non-living physical object or article or thing:- a) Resulting in transformation of the object or article or thing into a new and distinct object or article or thing having a different name, character and use, or b) Bringing into existence

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAMMU vs. SH. PUNEET SEHDEV, PROP., JAMMU

Bench: Shri L. P. Sahu & Shri Ravish Sood

section 2(24BA) of I.T.Act as under: “Manufacture” with its grammatical variations means a change in non-living physical object or article or thing:- a) Resulting in transformation of the object or article or thing into a new and distinct object or article or thing having a different name, character and use, or b) Bringing into existence

SH. PUNEET SEHDEV PROP,JAMMU vs. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, JAMMU

Bench: Shri L. P. Sahu & Shri Ravish Sood

section 2(24BA) of I.T.Act as under: “Manufacture” with its grammatical variations means a change in non-living physical object or article or thing:- a) Resulting in transformation of the object or article or thing into a new and distinct object or article or thing having a different name, character and use, or b) Bringing into existence

POONAM MARWAHA,AMRITSAR vs. ACIT DCIT CEN CIR, AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee is allowed

68,\nhowever, Commissioner exercising his\nrevisionary power under section 263\nset aside assessment orders directing\nAssessing Officer to make fresh\nassessment after conducting detailed\nenquiry and upon satisfying on\ngenuneness of transaction - Whether\norder of Commissioner was not based\non irrelevant considerations and\nfurther in present circumstances, he\nwas not obliged to positively indicate\ndeficiencies in assessment order

SH. RAMAN KUMAR AGGARWAL,GURDAS PUR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

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

68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.” 8. We heard the rival submission and considered the documents available in the record. The transaction was made through the share of M/s Kappac Pharma I.T.A. Nos.32 to 35/Asr/2019 16 A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16 Ltd. The transaction and mode of operation are duly identified by the revenue and addition was made

SMT. DEEPTI AGGARWAL,GURDAS PUR vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

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

68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.” 8. We heard the rival submission and considered the documents available in the record. The transaction was made through the share of M/s Kappac Pharma I.T.A. Nos.32 to 35/Asr/2019 16 A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16 Ltd. The transaction and mode of operation are duly identified by the revenue and addition was made

SH.GAURAV AGGARWAL,GURDAS PUR vs. DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

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

68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.” 8. We heard the rival submission and considered the documents available in the record. The transaction was made through the share of M/s Kappac Pharma I.T.A. Nos.32 to 35/Asr/2019 16 A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16 Ltd. The transaction and mode of operation are duly identified by the revenue and addition was made

M/S RAMAN KUMAR AGGARWAL,GURDASPUR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER .OF. INCOME. TAX , AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

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

68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.” 8. We heard the rival submission and considered the documents available in the record. The transaction was made through the share of M/s Kappac Pharma I.T.A. Nos.32 to 35/Asr/2019 16 A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16 Ltd. The transaction and mode of operation are duly identified by the revenue and addition was made

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

260 (SC)]. However, in case of slump sale which includes land/building where separate value is assigned to it under the relevant stamp duty legislation, the slump sale will not be adversely affected in the light of Explanation 2 to section 2(42C). (g) Transfer of assets without transfer of liabilities is not a slump sale.” 45. Referring

SHREE AMAR KSHATRIYA SABHA CHARITABLE TRUST ,JAMMU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- ( EXEMPTIONS), JAMMU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Krinwant Sahay(Hybrid Hearing) I.T.A. No. 492/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2020-21

260/- after claiming exemptions u/s 11 and 10(23C), along with a belatedly filed audit report in Form 10B uploaded and approved on the same date. 3.1 The assessment has been completed by CPC, Bangalore u/s 143(1) on a total income of Rs. 39,49,400/- without allowing the claim for exemptions due to the reasons that the statutory

NARINDER AND COMPANY,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(5), JALANDHAR

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

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

260 194 69 GI wire 07.11.2016 56863.00 262 194 11 Narinder and Company v. ITO 3707029.00 7.6 That the assessee has submitted reply before the assessing officer in which the same figure of cash sales has been reflected in the reply dated 04.12.2019(Please refer page no 134- 135 of paper book).However, the assessee while submitting the summary