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

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

d) ignoring the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pr. CIT Vs. Kusum Health Care Pvt. Ltd., wherein it has been held that when Assessee has already factored in the impact of the receivables on the working capital and thereby on its 8 I.T.A. Nos. 477 & CO 32/Asr/2015 & Ors Asstt

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

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

d) ignoring the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pr. CIT Vs. Kusum Health Care Pvt. Ltd., wherein it has been held that when Assessee has already factored in the impact of the receivables on the working capital and thereby on its 8 I.T.A. Nos. 477 & CO 32/Asr/2015 & Ors Asstt

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

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

d) ignoring the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pr. CIT Vs. Kusum Health Care Pvt. Ltd., wherein it has been held that when Assessee has already factored in the impact of the receivables on the working capital and thereby on its 8 I.T.A. Nos. 477 & CO 32/Asr/2015 & Ors Asstt

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

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

d) ignoring the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pr. CIT Vs. Kusum Health Care Pvt. Ltd., wherein it has been held that when Assessee has already factored in the impact of the receivables on the working capital and thereby on its 8 I.T.A. Nos. 477 & CO 32/Asr/2015 & Ors Asstt

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

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

d) ignoring the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pr. CIT Vs. Kusum Health Care Pvt. Ltd., wherein it has been held that when Assessee has already factored in the impact of the receivables on the working capital and thereby on its 8 I.T.A. Nos. 477 & CO 32/Asr/2015 & Ors Asstt

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

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

d) ignoring the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pr. CIT Vs. Kusum Health Care Pvt. Ltd., wherein it has been held that when Assessee has already factored in the impact of the receivables on the working capital and thereby on its 8 I.T.A. Nos. 477 & CO 32/Asr/2015 & Ors Asstt

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

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

d) ignoring the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pr. CIT Vs. Kusum Health Care Pvt. Ltd., wherein it has been held that when Assessee has already factored in the impact of the receivables on the working capital and thereby on its 8 I.T.A. Nos. 477 & CO 32/Asr/2015 & Ors Asstt

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

17 I.T.A. No. 702/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2021-22 I. Section 80-IA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 read with section 43A of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 - Deductions - Profits and gains from infrastructure undertakings (Computation of deduction) - Assessment year 2001-02 - Assessee, engaged in electricity generation and industrial activities, established captive power plants due to insufficient supply from State

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

17 taxmann.com 186 (Orissa)- Held“Section 139 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Return of income - Revised return - Assessment year 2006-07 - Whether an assessee can revise his return of income by way of filing a revised statement of income after filing original return other than by way of filing revised return as contemplated under section 139(5) - Held

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

5. That the Excess stock was arising out of business dealings and as such the provisions of Section 69B, read with Section 115BBE, are not applicable in the instant case 32 17. Per Contra the Ld DR relied on the order of the Ld PCIT, and argued that he was justified in setting aside the order due to the fact

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

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

INCOME TAX OFFICER, INCOME TAX OFFICE vs. VIKAS MEHRA, THE MALL

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed being devoid of

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

D. R. Date of Hearing : 23.07.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 07.08.2025 ORDER Per Udayan Dasgupta, J.M.: This appeal is filed by the Revenue against the order of the ld. CIT(A) NFAC, Delhi dated 11.08.2023 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which has emanated from the order of the AO, Ward 5(4), Amritsar passed

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

D-Mat statement etc. and there is nothing to pinpoint anything against the assessees., High court held that where assessee earned LTCG on sale of shares and AO denied said claim and made additions under section 68 on ground that assessee invested in shares of penny stock companies which provided bogus LTCG, since assessee failed to establish genuineness of rise

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

D-Mat statement etc. and there is nothing to pinpoint anything against the assessees., High court held that where assessee earned LTCG on sale of shares and AO denied said claim and made additions under section 68 on ground that assessee invested in shares of penny stock companies which provided bogus LTCG, since assessee failed to establish genuineness of rise

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

d) The intention of the purchaser of the land is not for agriculture purpose but the same was to earn profit from sale of land as evident from the facts of the case. (e) The land was situated is developed area s nearby A irocity and Airport. (f) The land was purchased by the assessee and the same

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

D, Model Town (Extension), Ludhiana, wherein she had agreed to sell her land admeasuring 09 Kanal - 03 Marla (i.e 5535 sq. yards) situated at Village : Daad, Pakhowal Road, Ludhiana for a consideration of Rs. 7,19,55,000/- 5 Smt. Gurjeet Kaur Vs. ITO-Ward 3(4), Jalandhar ITA No. 627 & 628/Asr/2017 – A.Y 2008-09 & 2009-10 i.e 5

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

D, Model Town (Extension), Ludhiana, wherein she had agreed to sell her land admeasuring 09 Kanal - 03 Marla (i.e 5535 sq. yards) situated at Village : Daad, Pakhowal Road, Ludhiana for a consideration of Rs. 7,19,55,000/- 5 Smt. Gurjeet Kaur Vs. ITO-Ward 3(4), Jalandhar ITA No. 627 & 628/Asr/2017 – A.Y 2008-09 & 2009-10 i.e 5