SATIA INDUSTRIES LIMITED,MUKTSAR vs. DCIT/ACIT CIRCLE I, BATHINDA, BATHINDA

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

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

iv) of the Act 61 in respect of the power and steam generated by UNIT -1, (functioning with a capacity of 12.5 Mega Watt), and the electricity and steam so generated being transferred to the paper manufacturing unit (non-specified unit) has adopted TNMM (transactional net margin method), as a comparison for working out net profit margins earned by independent

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

17 A.Y.2015-16 find are totally different. In the present case the rental income was earned on letting out residential property to the key managerial personnel of the assessee company in lieu of its retention policy. This fact has remained uncontroverted by the Ld.Pr.CIT and even before us. Based on identical set of facts, various judicial decisions, as referred

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

Bench: Sh. Vikram Singh Yadav & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

1 of brief synopsis. 2. [2015] 60 taxmann.com (Kolkata - Trib.) IN THE ITAT KOLKATA BENCH 'B' Subhlakshmi Vanijya (P.) Ltd. Commissioner Income-tax-I, Kolkata V. of 60 Section 68, read with section 263, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Cash credit (Share capital) Assessment years 2008-09 to 2010-11 - Assessee filed return offering meagre income and issued share

SH. SANTOKH SINGH BRAR,MOGA vs. ITO, WARD - 2,, MOGA

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

price mentioned on the said document. In this AR had submitted that, appellant, during the course of assessment proceedings, 3.7. denied the charge of the Learned Assessing Officer that the said property was actually sold for Rs. 11.25 crores on the following grounds: i) The assessee does not know the source of the purported alleged documents in the possession

SH. GURBACHAN SINGH BRAR,MOGA vs. ITO, WARD - 1,, MOGA

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

price mentioned on the said document. In this AR had submitted that, appellant, during the course of assessment proceedings, 3.7. denied the charge of the Learned Assessing Officer that the said property was actually sold for Rs. 11.25 crores on the following grounds: i) The assessee does not know the source of the purported alleged documents in the possession

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

price of impugned land purchase, ignoring the detailed discussion of the same in the assessment order; that the Ld. CIT(A) is not right to 15 I.T.A. No.557/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2019-20 hold that various ikrarnamas, photocopies of which were found and seized during search viz. A-9 DNB-1 are collusive in nature, as claimed by the assessee, when

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

transferred from his bank account. Backed by his aforesaid observations, the A.O acting upon the contents of the “agreement to sell”, therein, held the amount of Rs. 1.50 crore received by the assessee as 8 Smt. Gurjeet Kaur Vs. ITO-Ward 3(4), Jalandhar ITA No. 627 & 628/Asr/2017 – A.Y 2008-09 & 2009-10 earnest money from Sh. Surjit Singh (supra

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

transferred from his bank account. Backed by his aforesaid observations, the A.O acting upon the contents of the “agreement to sell”, therein, held the amount of Rs. 1.50 crore received by the assessee as 8 Smt. Gurjeet Kaur Vs. ITO-Ward 3(4), Jalandhar ITA No. 627 & 628/Asr/2017 – A.Y 2008-09 & 2009-10 earnest money from Sh. Surjit Singh (supra

SMT. INDERMEET BAINS W/O SH. D.S. BAINS,BATHINDA vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , BATHINDA

The appeal of the assessee is disposed of in the term indicated as above

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

iv). Copy of the judgment of ITAT, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh in the case of Surinder Kaur in ITA No. 86/Chd/2021 vide order dated 06.05.2022 on the issue of u/s 263. v). Loil Continental Foods Ltd. vs. Pr. CIT in ITA No. 577/Chd/2019 Chd-Trib. vi). CIT vs. Hindustan Marketing & Advertising Co. Ltd. 341 ITR 180 Delhi-HC vii). Commissioner

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

1, Jalandhar, dated 29/03/2022, where the abovementioned bank account of the assessee held with “ Capital Small Finance Bank” has been examined and some additions has been made on account of unexplained credit entries in such bank , but there is no adverse findings in respect of the investment of Rs. 18 lakhs made by the assessee from the said

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

1, Jalandhar, dated 29/03/2022, where the abovementioned bank account of the assessee held with “ Capital Small Finance Bank” has been examined and some additions has been made on account of unexplained credit entries in such bank , but there is no adverse findings in respect of the investment of Rs. 18 lakhs made by the assessee from the said

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, AMRITSAR vs. M/S PUNJAB RICE LAND PRIVATE LIMITED , TARN TARAN

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

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

IV, Amritsar and also mentioning history of its creation and rating, complete account with bank statement and bank certificate, complete stock fcjtally, invoice with checking on reverse, transportation evidence with RC verifications/proof of export of rice directly under Insurance cover, copying of clearing agents invoice, copy of credit rating, banker certificate of beneficiary account of seller along with the tabulation

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, AMRITSAR vs. M/S PUNJAB RICE LAND PRIVATE LIMITED, TARN TARAN

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

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

IV, Amritsar and also mentioning history of its creation and rating, complete account with bank statement and bank certificate, complete stock fcjtally, invoice with checking on reverse, transportation evidence with RC verifications/proof of export of rice directly under Insurance cover, copying of clearing agents invoice, copy of credit rating, banker certificate of beneficiary account of seller along with the tabulation

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