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

Capital Gain. The action of AO in making additions u/s 69A of the Act and disallowing the claim of LTCG

MR.VISHAL BATRA,`LUDHIANA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

Capital Gain”. 4. That the above disallowance made in the case of the Appellant is against the facts and circumstances

M/S CITI PLAZA,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , WARD 3(1), JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

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

capital gain, if any was assessable in AY 2006-07, which claim had been accepted by his predecessor to delete the addition made in AY 2005-06, now the contentions raised by assessee were totally misleading and contrary to facts. 4. The assessee had relied upon a plethora of under noted cases, wherein the findings/directions were elaborately explained

SH. AMRIT LAL BATRA, PROP.,SRINAGAR vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, JAMMU

Appeals of the appellant are disposed off in the terms indicated as above

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

capital gains and also on the issue of disallowance of legal expenses. 6. First, we take up the Issue with

SHRI AMRIT LAL BATRA,SRINAGAR vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX-3, SRINAGAR

Appeals of the appellant are disposed off in the terms indicated as above

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

capital gains and also on the issue of disallowance of legal expenses. 6. First, we take up the Issue with

SMT. DEEPTI AGGARWAL,GURDAS PUR vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

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

disallowance of long-term capital gain u/s 10(38) claimed by the assessee. All the cases are taken together, heard

SH. RAMAN KUMAR AGGARWAL,GURDAS PUR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

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

disallowance of long-term capital gain u/s 10(38) claimed by the assessee. All the cases are taken together, heard

M/S RAMAN KUMAR AGGARWAL,GURDASPUR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER .OF. INCOME. TAX , AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

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

disallowance of long-term capital gain u/s 10(38) claimed by the assessee. All the cases are taken together, heard

SH.GAURAV AGGARWAL,GURDAS PUR vs. DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

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

disallowance of long-term capital gain u/s 10(38) claimed by the assessee. All the cases are taken together, heard

SHRI AMAR NATH CHOUDHARY,JAMMU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAMMU

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

disallowance by AO in respect of the commercial open space on presumption and assumptions on identical facts in all the three years and hence, these appeals are adjudicated together for brevity. 7. Facts are discussed from ITA No. 34/Asr/2022 in respect of the Assessment Year 2015016 as a lead case. The case was selected for LIMITED SCRUTINY to examine

SHRI AMAR NATH CHOUDHARY,JAMMU vs. DEPUTY CMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAMMU

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

disallowance by AO in respect of the commercial open space on presumption and assumptions on identical facts in all the three years and hence, these appeals are adjudicated together for brevity. 7. Facts are discussed from ITA No. 34/Asr/2022 in respect of the Assessment Year 2015016 as a lead case. The case was selected for LIMITED SCRUTINY to examine

SHRI AMAR NATH CHOUDHARY,JAMMU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRA L CIRCLE, JAMMU

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

disallowance by AO in respect of the commercial open space on presumption and assumptions on identical facts in all the three years and hence, these appeals are adjudicated together for brevity. 7. Facts are discussed from ITA No. 34/Asr/2022 in respect of the Assessment Year 2015016 as a lead case. The case was selected for LIMITED SCRUTINY to examine

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3, SRINAGAR vs. M/S TRUMBO CEMENT INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED, SRINAGAR

In the result, the Ground no-1 of the Revenue for ITA No

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

disallowance amount to Rs.60,38,701/- u/s 14A is bad. 10. The ld. AR relied on the order of the ld. CIT(A) page no. 18 the relevant para is extracted as below: “It is further submitted that share application money is not capable of earning any exempt income therefore the share application money cannot be considered as investment which

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3, SRINAGAR vs. M/S TRUMBO CEMENT INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED , SRINAGAR

In the result, the Ground no-1 of the Revenue for ITA No

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

disallowance amount to Rs.60,38,701/- u/s 14A is bad. 10. The ld. AR relied on the order of the ld. CIT(A) page no. 18 the relevant para is extracted as below: “It is further submitted that share application money is not capable of earning any exempt income therefore the share application money cannot be considered as investment which

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

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee is allowed

Capital gains - Special\nprovision for computation of full value consideration (Revision) - Assessee had filed its\nreturn and same was processed under section 143(1) Subsequently, Principal\nCommissioner invoked revision under section 263 on ground that a land was sold by\nassessee to an entity below value adopted by concerned authority for levy of stamp duty,\nand therefore, there was under

SHRI NIRVAIR SINGH,AMRITSAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-4(3), AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

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

disallowances along with necessary evidence /reasons for forming same which in contravention to CBDT Instruction Number 20/2015 Dated 29/12/2015. 7. That the order passed by the Ld. Assessing officer and further upheld by worthy CIT (Appeals) is infructuous and bad in law as the Ld. Assessing officer had erred on law and facts in making addition

SHRI NIRVAIR SINGH,AMRITSAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-4(3), AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

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

capital gains of sale proceeds of land and had duly recorded in return filed. That on facts and in law in the interest of equity and justice addition of Rs 9,04,688/- needs to be deleted. 7. That the order passed by Ld. AO and further upheld by the worthy CIT (Appeals) is illegal as the Ld. Assessing officer

SHRI AMRITPAL SINGH (PROP),JALANDHAR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- 1, JALANDHAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee ITA No

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

capital gain and d education claimed u/s 54D along with documents. Please explain as to why the deduction claimed u/s 54D may not be disallowed

DAVINDER SINGH,SAMAOH PUNJAB vs. ITO WARD 1(4), MANSA, MANSA,PUNJAB

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

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Physical Hearing) I.T.A. No. 214/Asr/2025 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Sh. Davinder Singh, Bhal Patti, Vs. Ito, Ward-1(4), Samaon, Matti B.O. Kotra, Mansa. Mansa, Punjab. [Pan:-Abmps3429E] (Appellant) (Respondent) Sh. Rohit Kapoor, Adv & Sh. Appellant By Himanshu Gupta, Ca Respondent By Sh. Charan Dass, Sr. Dr

disallowance of claim of deduction u/s 54B and u/s 54F which has arisen on the sale of land resulting in long-term capital gain