M/S VEER ENTERPRISES,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-III, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

income from house property’, (iii) ‘profits and gains from business or profession’, (iv) ‘capital gains’ and (v) ‘income from other

RAJIV KUMAR GOYAL,DHURI vs. DCIT, CC-2, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: This Hon’Ble Tribunal Under Section 253 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 As Amended From Time To Time. 2. The Assessee Is Aggrieved By Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Dated 03/02/2023 In Appeal No. 10850/2018-19/It/Cit(A)-5/Ldh/2021-22 For A.Y. 2019-20 Under Section 250(6) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Which Was Dismissed. Therefore The Present Second Appeal Under Section 253 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Before Us Against The Aforesaid Order Dt. 03/02/2023 Which Is Hereiafter Referred To As The Impugned Order. Factual Matrix 3. The Assessee Had For The Relevant Year I.E; A.Y. 2019-20 Was Also Engaged In The Same Business I.E; Manufacturing Of Pvc Pipes & Had Filed

income from salary, house property, profits and gains of business or profession, or capital gains, nor as it income from

SANJEEV KUMAR GOYAL,FATEHABAD vs. DCIT, CC-2, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is allowed

Bench: This Hon’Ble Tribunal Under Section 253 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 As Amended From Time To Time. 2. The Assessee Is Aggrieved By The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Dt. 20/01/2023 In Appeal No. 10853/2018-19/It/Cit(A)-5/Ldh/2021-22 For The A.Y. 2019-20 Under Section 250(6) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Which Was Dismissed. Therefore The Present Second Appeal Under Section 253 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Before Us Against The Aforesaid Order Dt. 20/01/2023 Which Is Hereinafter Referred To As The Impugned Order.

income from salary, house property, profits and gains of business or profession, or capital gains, nor is it income from

SH. AJAY KUMAR SINGHANIA,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CPC, BANGLORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Judicial Membe & Ms. Annapurna Gupta, Accountantmember Assessment Year : 2016-17

business loss against the short term capital gain. However, after adjusting the capital gains of the year against the brought forward short term capital loss of Rs. 4,86,524/- and claiming deduction u/s 80 at Rs. 3,94,378/- returned the taxable income

SH. KRISHAN KUMAR,KHANNA vs. DCIT, CC-1, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

income from house property’, (iii) ‘profits and gains from business or profession’, (iv) ‘capital gains’ and (v) ‘income from other

M/S JASHAN FINLEASE LTD.,KHANNA vs. DCIT, CC-1, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

income from house property’, (iii) ‘profits and gains from business or profession’, (iv) ‘capital gains’ and (v) ‘income from other

M/S SATWANT AGRO ENGINEERS,BHAWANIGARH vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, PATIALA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

income from salary, house property, profits and gains of business or profession, or capital gains, nor is it income from

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD), LUDHIANA vs. M/S SHEETAL INDUSTRIES , KHANNA

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahay

income from house property’, (iii) ‘profits and gains from business or profession’, (iv) ‘capital gains’ and (v) ‘income from other

M/S AMARJIT & SONS,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-2, LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A) Have Not Been Appreciated.

income from house property’, (iii) ‘profits and gains from business or profession’, (iv) ‘capital gains’ and (v) ‘income from other

M/S A.P. KNIT FAB,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT CC-3, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A) Have Not Been Appreciated. 4. That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Failed To Appreciate That During The Course Of Survey, No Other Income Was Noticed By The Department And, As Such, Taxing The Amount Offered As Deemed Income, Is Against The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 5. That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Also Failed To Appreciate That At The Time Of Survey, It Was Agreed That The Applicant Shall Pay The Taxes On The Amount Offered

income from house property’, (iii) ‘profits and gains from business or profession’, (iv) ‘capital gains’ and (v) ‘income from other

SH. GURINDER MAKKAR,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-3, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is disposed off in light of aforesaid directions

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

income from house property’, (iii) ‘profits and gains from business or profession’, (iv) ‘capital gains’ and (v) ‘income from other

RAV SHARAN SINGH,PATIALA vs. ACIT, C.C., PATIALA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

income from house property’, (iii) ‘profits and gains from business or profession’, (iv) ‘capital gains’ and (v) ‘income from other

SHRI KRISHAN KUMAR JALAN,BANGALORE vs. ITO, W-1, SIRSA

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

business income from\npartnership firms, capital gains and income from other sources during the\nfinancial year ending 31/03/2014 relevant to the A.Y.2014-15

HET RAM SHARMA,MANDI vs. ITO, , SUNDERNAGAR

In the result, both the above appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Ms. Annapurna Guptaassessment Year: 2008-09 Shri. Het Ram Sharma Vs. The Ito Vill & P.O. Tattapani Sundernagar Tehsil Karsog Mandi, H.P. Mandi, H.P.

income. Further the AO noted that the other building acquired was a hotel /dhaba which was used for commercial purpose and hence was a business asset of the asessee and the capital gain

DHEERUMAL SHARMA,MANDI vs. ITO, SUNDERNAGAR

In the result, both the above appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Ms. Annapurna Guptaassessment Year: 2008-09 Shri. Het Ram Sharma Vs. The Ito Vill & P.O. Tattapani Sundernagar Tehsil Karsog Mandi, H.P. Mandi, H.P.

income. Further the AO noted that the other building acquired was a hotel /dhaba which was used for commercial purpose and hence was a business asset of the asessee and the capital gain

SMT. AARTI SINGAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

Bench: S/Shri N.K. Saini, Vice- & Rajpal Yadav, Vice-

capital gain on the purchase and sale of shares of the companies which were not having any business activity. All these companies were showing meagre income

SH. SANJAY SINGAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

Bench: S/Shri N.K. Saini, Vice- & Rajpal Yadav, Vice-

capital gain on the purchase and sale of shares of the companies which were not having any business activity. All these companies were showing meagre income

SH. SANJAY SINGAL HUF,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

Bench: S/Shri N.K. Saini, Vice- & Rajpal Yadav, Vice-

capital gain on the purchase and sale of shares of the companies which were not having any business activity. All these companies were showing meagre income