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 being exempt u/s 10(38) is fully justified. In view thereof, addition of Rs. 2,11,81,016/- made by the AO is upheld Accordingly, these grounds of appeal are dismissed.” 9. Now the assessee is in appeal before

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

SMT. ANURADHA MAHAJAN,,JAMMU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMMU

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees bearing ITA Nos

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

capital gain is chargeable on the compulsory acquisition of these lands because these are agricultural land situated outside the municipal limits of Rajouri Town. All these lands are situated in villages near around Rajouri. I.T.A. Nos. 75 to 77/Asr/2006 Assessment Year.: 1988-89 7 2. Particulars of Land Acquired in the case of three assesses are given as under: Name

SMT. DHANWANTI DEVI (DECEASED),JAMMU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMMU

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees bearing ITA Nos

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

capital gain is chargeable on the compulsory acquisition of these lands because these are agricultural land situated outside the municipal limits of Rajouri Town. All these lands are situated in villages near around Rajouri. I.T.A. Nos. 75 to 77/Asr/2006 Assessment Year.: 1988-89 7 2. Particulars of Land Acquired in the case of three assesses are given as under: Name

SH. SUNIL GUPTA,JAMMU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMMU

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees bearing ITA Nos

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

capital gain is chargeable on the compulsory acquisition of these lands because these are agricultural land situated outside the municipal limits of Rajouri Town. All these lands are situated in villages near around Rajouri. I.T.A. Nos. 75 to 77/Asr/2006 Assessment Year.: 1988-89 7 2. Particulars of Land Acquired in the case of three assesses are given as under: Name

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 would be taxable in the financial year 2009-10 relevant to assessment year 2010-11 i.e. the previous year in which the period of three years from the date of transfer of original assets expired. 4. So with a view to comply with the above said directions of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Jalandhar approval may kindly

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

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

capital gain in the hands of the appellant on which the tax may be imposed. 9. That the Ld. CIT(A) has also erred in not deleting the interest charged u/s 234-B of the Income Tax Act as this interest is not chargeable. 10. That the appellant reserves the right to take any additional or alternative grounds of appeal

SHRI GURKHA SINGH ALIAS JOGINDER SINGH ,BATHINDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFIER WARD 1(1), BATHINDA

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

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No.145/Asr/2018 Assessment Year: 2009-10

reassessment is liable to be quashed. 6. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in not considering the indexed cost of acquisition of agricultural land in 2003-04 for Rs. 187300/- and its indexed cost for deduction at Rs. 235440/-. 7. That on the facts

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -2 (1), AMRITSAR vs. MS. SAVITA BANSAL, THROUGH LEGAL HEIR SH. PARVEEN KUMAR BANSAL, AMRITSAR

In the result, the revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Udayan Das Gupta, Jm 1. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 240/Asr/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Income Tax Officer Smt. Savita Bansal Ward-2(1) बनाम/ (Through L/H Shri Parveen Kumar Bansal) Amritsar 143001 H.No. 272, Green Avenue Vs. Amritsar-143001. "थायीलेखासं./Pan. Abmpb-3594-K (Assessee) / Acnpk-4131-D (Lh) (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 2. Cross Objection No. 1/Amritsar/2024 (In Ita No. 240/Asr/2023) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Smt. Savita Bansal Income Tax Officer बनाम/ (Through L/H Shri Parveen Kumar Bansal) Ward-2(1) H.No. 272, Green Avenue Amritsar 143001 Vs. Amritsar-143001. "थायीलेखासं./Pan. Abmpb-3594-K (Assessee) / Acnpk-4131-D (Lh) (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/Appellant By : Dr Rakesh Gupta (Advocate) –Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri B. Srinivas Kumar (Cit) – Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10-07-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21-08-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () Aforesaid Appeal By Revenue For Assessment Year (Ay) 2016- 1. 17 Arises Out Of An Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax

capital gains. Accordingly, a show-cause notice was issued. The Ld. AO observed that there was abnormal increase in the price of the scrips which could be possible only if the prices were rigged. In the absence of any rebuttal as forthcoming from the assessee, the LTCG so earned for Rs.482.86 Lacs & claimed exempt u/s 10(38) was considered

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

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee is allowed

gain\n(LTCG) to claim exemption under section 10 (38) was based on a proposal given by\nAssessing Officer, exercise of jurisdiction under section 263 was not justified - Held, yes\n[Paras 8 and 9] [In favour of assessee]\n27.\nThe Ld AR further argued on applicability of clause(a) of explanation 2 to\nsection 263 and relied upon

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

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

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

capital gain arise, scrutiny is necessary. The information available on record in the case of assessee as above have been considered and after careful consideration, I am of the considered view and have therefore reasons to believe that income to the extent of Rs.30,44,500/- Rs. 100,00,000/- & Rs.53,98,000/-being investment from undisclosed, sources' chargeable

SMT. SATVIR KAUR W/O SH. SHINDER SINGH,FEROZEPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

Capital Gain, exemption u/s 10(36) of the Act, deduction u/s 57 of the Act and unsecured loans and the assessees furnished all the relevant documents which were examined by the AO who has taken a possible view. Therefore, it is our considered view that there was a due application of mind on the part

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, FARIDKOT, BSNL BUILDING vs. M/S VOHRA SOLVEX PVT. LTD, SADIQ ROAD

In the result, C.O. filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Krinwant Sahay

capital gain on sale of shares an basis of statement of entry operators recorded on various dates in some other proceedings not connected with assessee and no opportunity to cross-examine so- called entry providers was given to assessee thereby violating principles of natural Justice, Tribunal was Justified in deleting addition made by Assessing Officer" [2023] 157 taxmann.com

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. ARASHPREET SINGH S/O. LATE SH. GURMAIL SINGH,MUKTSAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-II, BATHINDA

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

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

reassessment proceedings were mounted. The levy of penalty was justified hence the grounds of appeal are dismissed.” 30. The Ld. AR contended that the cryptic and non-speaking order passed under section 250(6) by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Bathinda in Appeal No. 135-IT/17-18 dated 12.11.2018 is contrary to law and facts of the case

LATE. SH. GURMAIL SINGH.S/O. LATE SH. LAL SINGH,SRI MUKTSAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -II, BATHINDA

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

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

reassessment proceedings were mounted. The levy of penalty was justified hence the grounds of appeal are dismissed.” 30. The Ld. AR contended that the cryptic and non-speaking order passed under section 250(6) by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Bathinda in Appeal No. 135-IT/17-18 dated 12.11.2018 is contrary to law and facts of the case

SH. ARASHPREET SINGH. S/O.LATE.SH. GURMAIL SINGH,MUKTSAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX .CIRCLE-II, BATHINDA

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

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

reassessment proceedings were mounted. The levy of penalty was justified hence the grounds of appeal are dismissed.” 30. The Ld. AR contended that the cryptic and non-speaking order passed under section 250(6) by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Bathinda in Appeal No. 135-IT/17-18 dated 12.11.2018 is contrary to law and facts of the case

SH. ARASHPREET SINGH S/O. LATE SH. GURMAIL SINGH,MUKTSAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CERCLE- II, BATHINDA

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

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

reassessment proceedings were mounted. The levy of penalty was justified hence the grounds of appeal are dismissed.” 30. The Ld. AR contended that the cryptic and non-speaking order passed under section 250(6) by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Bathinda in Appeal No. 135-IT/17-18 dated 12.11.2018 is contrary to law and facts of the case