ITO, W-1(3), CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. RENU ANAND, CHANDIGARH

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

section 143(2) was issued on 02/09/2014 by the Dy. CIT Circle1(1) Chandigarh 2 and served upon the assessee on 08/09/2014. Thereafter the case record was transferred to ITO Ward1(3) which was received on 26/05/2015. That further proceedings were taken up by issuing notice u/s 142(1) alongwith questionnaire on 11/06/2015 followed by on 30/07/2015. That

VARINDER PAL SINGH,RAMPUR vs. ITO, W-4, KHANNA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Sainiआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.481/Chd/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10

183 Taxman 277. 3. Dy.CIT, Central Circle-1, Kanpur Vs. Shri Satish Chandra Pandey, ITA No No.525/LKW/2010. 4. DCIT, CC-3, Hyderabad Vs. R.A. Alagar Raja, Bengaluru, ITA No.1139/Hyd/2013 5. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Smt.N.Sasikala, reported in (2005) 92 TTJ 1196. 6. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-4, Hyderabad Vs. Shri Madhusudan Sonthalia, Hyderabad, ITA No.644/Hyd

DCIT,CIRCLE-I, LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA vs. ADINATH TEXTILES LIMITED, LUDHIANA

In the result both the appeal filed by the Revenue and Cross objection filed by the Assessee are dismissed

Bench: the appeal is finally heard or disposed off.

68 solely on basis of information received from Investigation Wing that lenders from whom assessee-company acquired loans were indulged in bogus accommodation entries, since assessee was not granted an opportunity to cross-examine persons whose statements were recorded during Investigation, Impugned addition made on basis of such investigation which was not privy to assessee were to be deleted

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3), LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA vs. SHREE BALAJI PROCESSORS, LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed whereas, the 29

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Dr Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 499/Chd/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 The Ito, Vs. Shree Balaji Processors, बनाम Ward-1(3), Tajpur Road, Ludhiana Opp. Central Jail, Ludhiana 141010 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Actfs8428B अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent & C.O. No. 09/Chd/2024 ( In आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 499/Chd/2023) "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Shree Balaji Processors, Vs. The Ito, बनाम Tajpur Road, Ward-1(3), Opp. Central Jail, Ludhiana Ludhiana 141010 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Actfs8428B अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent ( Physical Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Smt. Kusum Bansal, Cit Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 26.06.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20.08.2024

section 68/69 of the act is prohibited, as the same shall amount to double taxation. Reliance is being placed on the following judgment of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of President Industries reported in 258 ITR 654, wherein, it was held as under:- "The amount of sales by itself cannot represent the income of the assessee

SH. RAMNEEK SEHGAL,LUDHIANA vs. JCIT, RANGE VII, LUDHIANA

In the result all the appeals of the Assessee’s are allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

68,000/- under section 271E of the Act which is arbitrary and unjustified. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the reasonable cause pleaded before her in the correct perspective and as such the order passed by him is arbitrary and unjustified. 3. That the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is erroneous, arbitrary, opposed

SH. MOHINDER PAL SINGH,LUDHIANA vs. ADDL. CIT, R-VII, LUDHIANA

In the result all the appeals of the Assessee’s are allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

68,000/- under section 271E of the Act which is arbitrary and unjustified. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the reasonable cause pleaded before her in the correct perspective and as such the order passed by him is arbitrary and unjustified. 3. That the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is erroneous, arbitrary, opposed

SH. MOHINDER PAL SINGH,LUDHIANA vs. ADDL. CIT, R-VII, LUDHIANA

In the result all the appeals of the Assessee’s are allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

68,000/- under section 271E of the Act which is arbitrary and unjustified. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the reasonable cause pleaded before her in the correct perspective and as such the order passed by him is arbitrary and unjustified. 3. That the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is erroneous, arbitrary, opposed

SMT. PARAMJEET KAUR,LUDHIANA vs. JCIT, RANGE VII, LUDHIANA

In the result all the appeals of the Assessee’s are allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

68,000/- under section 271E of the Act which is arbitrary and unjustified. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the reasonable cause pleaded before her in the correct perspective and as such the order passed by him is arbitrary and unjustified. 3. That the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is erroneous, arbitrary, opposed

SH. RAMNEEK SEHGAL,LUDHIANA vs. JCIT, RANGE VII, LUDHIANA

In the result all the appeals of the Assessee’s are allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

68,000/- under section 271E of the Act which is arbitrary and unjustified. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the reasonable cause pleaded before her in the correct perspective and as such the order passed by him is arbitrary and unjustified. 3. That the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is erroneous, arbitrary, opposed

SURJEET SINGH,SIRSA vs. PCIT, ROHTAK, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

section 2 of section 56, clause(iv) in section 57 and clause (b) in Section 145A w.e.f. 01.04.2010. From the assessment year 2010-11 onwards, the amount of compensation or enhanced compensation is taxable as "income from other sources" after allowing deduction of a sum equal to 50% of such income in the year of receipt

SH. PARAMJEET SINGH,SIRSA vs. PCIT, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

section 2 of section 56, clause(iv) in section 57 and clause (b) in Section 145A w.e.f. 01.04.2010. From the assessment year 2010-11 onwards, the amount of compensation or enhanced compensation is taxable as "income from other sources" after allowing deduction of a sum equal to 50% of such income in the year of receipt

M/S GANESH DASS HUF,SIRSA vs. PCIT, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

section 2 of section 56, clause(iv) in section 57 and clause (b) in Section 145A w.e.f. 01.04.2010. From the assessment year 2010-11 onwards, the amount of compensation or enhanced compensation is taxable as "income from other sources" after allowing deduction of a sum equal to 50% of such income in the year of receipt

DHUNI CHAND HUF,SIRSA vs. PCIT, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

section 2 of section 56, clause(iv) in section 57 and clause (b) in Section 145A w.e.f. 01.04.2010. From the assessment year 2010-11 onwards, the amount of compensation or enhanced compensation is taxable as "income from other sources" after allowing deduction of a sum equal to 50% of such income in the year of receipt

SH. ARVAIL SINGH,SIRSA vs. PCIT, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

section 2 of section 56, clause(iv) in section 57 and clause (b) in Section 145A w.e.f. 01.04.2010. From the assessment year 2010-11 onwards, the amount of compensation or enhanced compensation is taxable as "income from other sources" after allowing deduction of a sum equal to 50% of such income in the year of receipt

SH. KASHMIR SINGH SANDHA,SIRSA vs. PCIT, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

section 2 of section 56, clause(iv) in section 57 and clause (b) in Section 145A w.e.f. 01.04.2010. From the assessment year 2010-11 onwards, the amount of compensation or enhanced compensation is taxable as "income from other sources" after allowing deduction of a sum equal to 50% of such income in the year of receipt

SH. RANDHIR SINGH,SIRSA vs. PCIT ROHTAK, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

section 2 of section 56, clause(iv) in section 57 and clause (b) in Section 145A w.e.f. 01.04.2010. From the assessment year 2010-11 onwards, the amount of compensation or enhanced compensation is taxable as "income from other sources" after allowing deduction of a sum equal to 50% of such income in the year of receipt

SH. SUNIL KHULLAR,SAMRALA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE, KHANNA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavi.T.A. No.137/Chandi/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Shri Sunil Khullar........................... ………................……............…..….. Appellant C/O Sat Parkash & Company, Ward No.7, H.No.10, Kang Mohalla, Samrala. [Pan:Azqpk0380E] Vs. Dcit, Circle-Khanna....................................................…..............……. Respondent Appearances By: Shri J. S. Bhasin, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Sarabjeet Singh, Cit, Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 27, 2022 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 30, 2022 Order

68 and 40A(3), and rejection of this ground by Id.CIT(A) is arbitrary and unjustified. 6. That the order under appeal, to the extent disputed herein, is against law and facts of the case. 3. A perusal of the above grounds of appeal reveals that the assessee inter alia, has contested the jurisdiction of the concerned DCIT to frame

ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUDHIANA vs. M/S MRS.BECTORS FOOD SPECILTIES LTD, LUDHIANA

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

183 Taxman 38 (P&H) manufacturing for itself or for others, which makes no difference for purpose of deduction u/s 80-IB. Allowable on job work. In view of above submissions we have correctly claimed deduction U/S 801C on the profits earned on job work." The assessee is doing job work for M/s ITC Ltd. at Tahliwal. The assessee