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

unexplained income and the same was added to the taxable income of the assessee. When such addition was challenged before CIT(Appeals), it also concurred with the findings of Assessing Officer by holding that the entire evidence was to show that Satakhat or the agreement to sell proved the market rate of the land at Rs.2.80 per bighas, and therefore

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. 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

Unexplained moneys (Share dealings) - High Court by impugned order held that where Assessing Officer disallowed exemption claimed by assessee under section 10(38) and made additions, alleging involvement in penny stock which were being misused for providing bogus accommodation of LTCG, however, there was lack of adverse comments from stock exchange and officials of company involved in these transactions

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

Unexplained moneys (Share dealings) - High Court by impugned order held that where Assessing Officer disallowed exemption claimed by assessee under section 10(38) and made additions, alleging involvement in penny stock which were being misused for providing bogus accommodation of LTCG, however, there was lack of adverse comments from stock exchange and officials of company involved in these transactions

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

Unexplained money (On money) Assessee was engaged in construction and development of housing projects - It was subjected to survey operation during which certain documents were found and impounded - On basis of such documents, Assessing Officer came to conclusion that assessee had 8 I.T.A. No.557/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2019-20 received on-money from sale of flats He therefore, made certain addition

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

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee is allowed

money and treatment of tax liability thereon should be under the\nprovisions of section 69B of the Act 61, and tax needs to be calculated as per section\n115BBE of the Act, on the surrendered income.\n7.\nIn course of revision proceedings, the Ld PCIT, vide notice dated 14/03/2023,\nasked for details of opening stock (at the beginning

SHRI RAM PAL GUPTA ,JAMMU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE , JAMMU

In the result, the appeal bearing ITA No

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

unexplained money in the hands of the assessee and added as deemed income of the assessee u/s 69A amounting to Rs.18 lac with the total income of the assessee. 7.1 The ld. Counsel relied on the order of the ld.CIT(A) the relevant para is extracted below: “The AR has argued that the AO was not justified in rejecting

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE , JAMMU vs. SHRI RAM PAL GUPTA, JAMMU

In the result, the appeal bearing ITA No

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

unexplained money in the hands of the assessee and added as deemed income of the assessee u/s 69A amounting to Rs.18 lac with the total income of the assessee. 7.1 The ld. Counsel relied on the order of the ld.CIT(A) the relevant para is extracted below: “The AR has argued that the AO was not justified in rejecting

SHRI SURINDER SINGH DECEASED,AMRITSAR. vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,, AMRITSAR.

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

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora

transferred through the banking channel, was subsequently changed to be paid in cash. The matter, it is to be borne in mind, came to surface on the basis of a complaint. Then, again, why would one, as Sh. Surinder Singh ostensibly does, give POA to another, an unrelated person? This is more so as both are residents of Amritsar

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

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

unexplained investment does not belong to the Assessed company. That the Assessee Company had never claimed that this money, belongs to the 21 I.T.A. No. 90/Asr/2017 Blue City Township & Colonizers v. ITO Assessee. There is no document on record to show that the money belongs to the assessee company. All the above objections of the appellant are baseless

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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR vs. SHRI JATINDER SINGH BEDI , JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue, ITA No 90/Asr/2020 is dismissed

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

transferred and registration of 3 Kanal 10 Marla was executed on 18.05.2018 for Rs.42 lacs and the balance property including the building & others are still in possession & power of M/s. S. Amar Singh Educational Charitable Trust. The electricity bill of the institute is still in the name of GNA-IMT which, as per the AR, justifies the claims

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR vs. SHRI JATINDER SINGH BEDI, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue, ITA No 90/Asr/2020 is dismissed

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

transferred and registration of 3 Kanal 10 Marla was executed on 18.05.2018 for Rs.42 lacs and the balance property including the building & others are still in possession & power of M/s. S. Amar Singh Educational Charitable Trust. The electricity bill of the institute is still in the name of GNA-IMT which, as per the AR, justifies the claims

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR vs. SHRI BHAVNOOR SINGH BEDI, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue, ITA No 90/Asr/2020 is dismissed

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

transferred and registration of 3 Kanal 10 Marla was executed on 18.05.2018 for Rs.42 lacs and the balance property including the building & others are still in possession & power of M/s. S. Amar Singh Educational Charitable Trust. The electricity bill of the institute is still in the name of GNA-IMT which, as per the AR, justifies the claims

SHRI BHAVNOOR SINGH BEDI,JALANDHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue, ITA No 90/Asr/2020 is dismissed

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

transferred and registration of 3 Kanal 10 Marla was executed on 18.05.2018 for Rs.42 lacs and the balance property including the building & others are still in possession & power of M/s. S. Amar Singh Educational Charitable Trust. The electricity bill of the institute is still in the name of GNA-IMT which, as per the AR, justifies the claims

SHRI BHAVNOOR SINGH BEDI,JALANDHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue, ITA No 90/Asr/2020 is dismissed

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

transferred and registration of 3 Kanal 10 Marla was executed on 18.05.2018 for Rs.42 lacs and the balance property including the building & others are still in possession & power of M/s. S. Amar Singh Educational Charitable Trust. The electricity bill of the institute is still in the name of GNA-IMT which, as per the AR, justifies the claims