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

house property at Rs.75,600/-, short term capital loss at (Rs.30,618/-), income from bank interest at Rs.17,667/- and LTCG (long term capital gains

INCOME TAX OFFICER, FEROZEPUR vs. MS.JATIN AGRO, FORT ROAD

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Physical Hearing) I.T.A. No. 103 & 104/Asr/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2017-18 Ito, Ward-3(1), Vs. M/S Jatin Agro Fort Road, Ferozepur. 152-P, Ferozepur. [Pan:-Aarpm5393F] (Appellant) (Respondent) Sh. Ashray Sarna, Ca Appellant By Respondent By Sh. Sunil Gautam, Cit. Dr

House Property". 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law as apart from letting out of its godowns, no other services, were extended by the assessee to the lessees. Merely because one of the objectives was to let out the godown would not mean that the assessee

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1),FEROZEPUR, FEROZEPUR vs. MS.JATIN AGRO, FORT ROAD

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Physical Hearing) I.T.A. No. 103 & 104/Asr/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2017-18 Ito, Ward-3(1), Vs. M/S Jatin Agro Fort Road, Ferozepur. 152-P, Ferozepur. [Pan:-Aarpm5393F] (Appellant) (Respondent) Sh. Ashray Sarna, Ca Appellant By Respondent By Sh. Sunil Gautam, Cit. Dr

House Property". 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law as apart from letting out of its godowns, no other services, were extended by the assessee to the lessees. Merely because one of the objectives was to let out the godown would not mean that the assessee

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

house property'. However, this is not an allowable deduction under the head 'capital gains’ as claimed by the assessee under

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

properties are still existing as on date and are enjoyed by the family member of the assessee as residential houses. 13. As such, he submitted that in absence of any sale or transfer of any capital assets, there is no question of any capital gains

M/S SHANKAR RICE & GENERAL MILLS ,MOGA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE, MOGA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

house property, profits and gains of business or profession, or capital gains, nor is it income from ’other sources' because

SHRIMATI RITU KAPOOR,SRINAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-III(2), SRINAGAR

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

capital gain of the appellant. The appellant submits that if the amount deposited with National Housing Bank is reduced from 1/3rd share of the sale price of the property

SHRI ARNESH KUMAR SHAKAR EX. MLA,HOSHIARPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD, DASUYA

In the result, appeal of the assessee ITA No

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

capital gain benefit fund and intended to invest this for purchasing the new property. Accordingly, the assessee purchased a residential house

SHRI GURBINDER SINGH MAHAL,AMRITSAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-IV ( 2), AMRITSAR

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

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

capital amount of refund due to him or to gain on account of sale of properties, his father Sh. Harjit Singh such other person; (PAN: FPHPS8530E) is ready to pay taxes on the same.’ (b) every person who is deemed to The appellant is not deemed to the assessee on behalf of the father Sh. be an assessee under

SHRI SUKHEV SINGH ,BATHINDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(2), BATHINDA

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

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

house on this benami plot with his own money out of the sale proceeds of the agricultural land. So, the assessee is entitled to deduction u/s 54F of the Act. This is further supported by the fact that the assessee was present in the Tehsil for the registration of purchase deed not the wife. 9. That in any case

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AMRITSAR. vs. SH. JAIMAL SINGH, L/H. SH. PREM CHAND,, TARN TARAN

In the result, the appeal bearing ITA No

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

Capital gains tax in respect of the property at 22 Butts, Crescent, Hanworth, Fetham, London of late Prem Chand sold on 10-11-2006 was taxable in India in the assessment year 2007-08 since the transfer of the said property took place in FY 2006-07, and was not taxable in the assessment year under consideration. Likewise, the other

SH. GURJINDER SINGH,AMRITSAR vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1, AMRITSAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

House property, Income from Business/Profession” and ‘Income from other sources”. Though, the nature of activities in both the proprietorship concerns is same i.e. wholesale trading of products of “Haldiram’s” but in M/s Pioneer Sales, the gross profit has been shown @ 3.47% whereas in M/s Apex Marketing it is 4%. The AO has failed to verify the reasons for difference

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

Housing Infra Pvt. Ltd., respectively and the return of income was filed on 31.01.2020, declaring total income 3 I.T.A. No.557/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2019-20 of Rs.67.53 lacs under the head capital gains , which was ultimately assessed , with an addition of Rs.2.05 cores u/s 69 of the Act, on the basis of suspicion of alleged on money payment relating to purchase

SHRIMATI SUMAN SBHARWAL,JALANDHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, JALANDHAR

In the result, all the captioned three appeals of the assessee are

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

House No. 435, New Jawahar Nagar, Jalandhar, during the period October, 2009. The AR repeatedly contended that these do not pertain to the year under consideration. The Ld. AR further argued that nothing has been brought on record to show that the amount was not actual but coded as alleged with corroborative evidence to multiply figure with 00. Thus

SHRIMATI SUMAN SABHARWAL,JALANDHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JALANDHAR

In the result, all the captioned three appeals of the assessee are

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

House No. 435, New Jawahar Nagar, Jalandhar, during the period October, 2009. The AR repeatedly contended that these do not pertain to the year under consideration. The Ld. AR further argued that nothing has been brought on record to show that the amount was not actual but coded as alleged with corroborative evidence to multiply figure with 00. Thus

SHRIMATI SUMAN SABHARWAL,JALANDHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JALANDHAR

In the result, all the captioned three appeals of the assessee are

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

House No. 435, New Jawahar Nagar, Jalandhar, during the period October, 2009. The AR repeatedly contended that these do not pertain to the year under consideration. The Ld. AR further argued that nothing has been brought on record to show that the amount was not actual but coded as alleged with corroborative evidence to multiply figure with 00. Thus

SHRI MOHD MANZOOR,RAJOURI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -2 (3), JAMMU

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

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

house with his wife till her death— ITO questioning its source after the same had subsequently been deposited with a bank in the names of assessee's then major daughters—In the absence of any evidence to the effect that the said sum was utilized by the assessee in any other manner, the Department was not justified in unreasonably rejecting

SHRI SATBIR SINGH BHULLAR,AMRITSAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- 5 (4), AMRITSAR

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

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

house with his wife till her death— ITO questioning its source after the same had subsequently been deposited with a bank in the names of assessee's then major daughters—In the absence of any evidence to the effect that the said sum was utilized by the assessee in any other manner, the Department was not justified in unreasonably rejecting