THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR vs. M/S BROADWAYS OVERSEAS LTD, JALANDHAR

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

13. In our view, these two set of provisions u/s 80IB and 10B of the Act, provided under the law for specific purpose with the intention to benefit and promote industrial growth and export promotion respectively under the act. Accordingly, it would not be justified to interpret or apply same yards sticks or ratio of judgement for deciding the claim

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR vs. M/S BROADWAYS OVERSEAS LTD, JALANDHAR

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

13. In our view, these two set of provisions u/s 80IB and 10B of the Act, provided under the law for specific purpose with the intention to benefit and promote industrial growth and export promotion respectively under the act. Accordingly, it would not be justified to interpret or apply same yards sticks or ratio of judgement for deciding the claim

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR vs. M/S BROADWAY OVERSEAS LTD., JALANDHAR

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

13. In our view, these two set of provisions u/s 80IB and 10B of the Act, provided under the law for specific purpose with the intention to benefit and promote industrial growth and export promotion respectively under the act. Accordingly, it would not be justified to interpret or apply same yards sticks or ratio of judgement for deciding the claim

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR vs. M/S BROADWAY OVERSEAS LTD., JALANDHAR

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

13. In our view, these two set of provisions u/s 80IB and 10B of the Act, provided under the law for specific purpose with the intention to benefit and promote industrial growth and export promotion respectively under the act. Accordingly, it would not be justified to interpret or apply same yards sticks or ratio of judgement for deciding the claim

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR vs. M/S BROADWAY OVERSEAS LTD., JALANDHAR

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

13. In our view, these two set of provisions u/s 80IB and 10B of the Act, provided under the law for specific purpose with the intention to benefit and promote industrial growth and export promotion respectively under the act. Accordingly, it would not be justified to interpret or apply same yards sticks or ratio of judgement for deciding the claim

BRODAWAYS OVERSEAS LIMITED,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR

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

13. In our view, these two set of provisions u/s 80IB and 10B of the Act, provided under the law for specific purpose with the intention to benefit and promote industrial growth and export promotion respectively under the act. Accordingly, it would not be justified to interpret or apply same yards sticks or ratio of judgement for deciding the claim

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR vs. M/S BROADWAY OVERSEAS LTD., JALANDHAR

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

13. In our view, these two set of provisions u/s 80IB and 10B of the Act, provided under the law for specific purpose with the intention to benefit and promote industrial growth and export promotion respectively under the act. Accordingly, it would not be justified to interpret or apply same yards sticks or ratio of judgement for deciding the claim

M/S. SATIA INDUSTRIES LIMITED,MUKTSAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, BATHINDA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

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

13 Assessment Year: 2018-19 I.T.A. No.193/Asr/2022 14 Assessment Year: 2018-19 I.T.A. No.193/Asr/2022 15 Assessment Year: 2018-19 I.T.A. No.193/Asr/2022 16 Assessment Year: 2018-19 I.T.A. No.193/Asr/2022 17 Assessment Year: 2018-19 5.2 Mr Sehgal, ld. AR further explained the details about the sale of renewable energy certificate (REC and ESCarts), the relevant part is extracted as below: “2

THE DY. COMMISSIONER INCOME-TAX, JAMMU vs. M/S. HORIZON BUILDCON PVT. LTD,, JAMMU

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue in I

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

transferred. The Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs. P. Suryanaraina 88 ITR 321 held that the full value of consideration in the said section meant only the actual value received by the assessee. However the market value may also be taken in place of full value of consideration only in the event of the consideration

THE DY. COMMISSIONER INCOME-TAX, JAMMU vs. M/S. HORIZON BUILDCON PVT. LTD,, JAMMU

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue in I

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

transferred. The Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs. P. Suryanaraina 88 ITR 321 held that the full value of consideration in the said section meant only the actual value received by the assessee. However the market value may also be taken in place of full value of consideration only in the event of the consideration

THE DY. COMMISSIONER INCOME-TAX, JAMMU vs. M/S. HORIZON BUILDCON PVT. LTD,, JAMMU

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue in I

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

transferred. The Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs. P. Suryanaraina 88 ITR 321 held that the full value of consideration in the said section meant only the actual value received by the assessee. However the market value may also be taken in place of full value of consideration only in the event of the consideration

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

2] [In favour of assessee]. 13. In the case of Principal Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Mamta Rajiv Kumar Agarwal [2023] 155 taxmann.com 549 (Gujarat), the Hon’ble HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT has observed on exemption of capital gains under Section 10(38) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 as under- “Section 10(38) of the Income

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

2] [In favour of assessee]. 13. In the case of Principal Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Mamta Rajiv Kumar Agarwal [2023] 155 taxmann.com 549 (Gujarat), the Hon’ble HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT has observed on exemption of capital gains under Section 10(38) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 as under- “Section 10(38) of the Income

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

transferred by the assessee to the M/s Devinder Kumar Deepesh Kumar ,as an accommodation entry for recording of bogus purchase, because 4 I.T.A. No. 236/Asr/2023 Assessment Year: 2011-12 as per the AO the physical movement of goods could not be proved, in absence of any Bilty, weighment slip of goods, octroi receipts, and in absence of any proof

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL CIRCLE), JAMMU vs. ANITA KAPAHI, JAMMU

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

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Krinwant Sahay

13 I.T.A. No.557/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2019-20 being made or received in cash , in respect of the above transaction of purchase and sale of the plot of land , over and above the amount of Rs.7,57,56,000/- , being transferred through bank channel. 14. He further pointed out that both the seller and buyer has filed sworn affidavits in support

M/S BLUE CITY TOWNSHIP & COLONIZERS,AMRITSAR. vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,, AMRITSAR.

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

H, Consolidated Photo & Finvest Ltd. Vs. ACIT 281 ITR 394 Del the principle is laid down that the Assessing Officer is expected to possess information which should make a prima facie belief of income having escaped assessment. Since, the Assessing Officer has specific information in his possession about the transaction in the purchase of land and duly corroborated with advance

MESERS GANESH RICE MILLS,MUKTSAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-II, BATHINDA

In the result the appeal of the assessee ITA No

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

transferred to the following concerns during the year itself on various dates- S.S. Enterprises, JalalabadRs.3,62,93,300/- Narinder Joson& Co., JalalabadRs.6,11,56,000/- Amrinder& Sons, Jalalabad Rs. 2,00,00,000/- Gurkirat Enterprises, Jalalabad Rs. 2,00,00,000/- Nawab Trading Rs. 1,07,06,700/- Josan Food Pvt. Ltd., Rs. 2,00,00,000/-” The ld. Counsel