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

SHRI TARLOCHAN SINGH,MANSA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(4), MANSA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are allowed

capital gain, (iv) It has been categorically stated in the reasons for initiating the reassessment proceedings that the capital was introduced

SHRI NAROTAM SINGH,MANSA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -1(4), MANSA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are allowed

capital gain, (iv) It has been categorically stated in the reasons for initiating the reassessment proceedings that the capital was introduced

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

SHRI.BOOTA SINGH S/O. SH. NACHATER SINGH, BATHINDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(1), BATHINDA

In the result all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. Laliet Kumar & Dr. M. L. Meena

capital gain by adopting the rate as on 1.4.1981 and other grounds of appeals with regard to not allowing full deduction u/s 54B. 7. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the CIT(A), the assessees before us for the ground mentioned above . Submissions of AR 8. AR had been submitted that notice issued under section 148 on the issue

SHRI NACHHATER SINGH S/O SHRI GURBAKSH SINGH,BATHINDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICEER , BATHINDA

In the result all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. Laliet Kumar & Dr. M. L. Meena

capital gain by adopting the rate as on 1.4.1981 and other grounds of appeals with regard to not allowing full deduction u/s 54B. 7. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the CIT(A), the assessees before us for the ground mentioned above . Submissions of AR 8. AR had been submitted that notice issued under section 148 on the issue

SHRI BABBU SINGH S/O SHRI NACHHATER SINGH,BATHINDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICEER WARD-2(1), BATHINDA

In the result all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. Laliet Kumar & Dr. M. L. Meena

capital gain by adopting the rate as on 1.4.1981 and other grounds of appeals with regard to not allowing full deduction u/s 54B. 7. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the CIT(A), the assessees before us for the ground mentioned above . Submissions of AR 8. AR had been submitted that notice issued under section 148 on the issue

SHRI BRIJINDERPAL SINGH BHULLAR,MOHALI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- 1 (3), BATHINDA

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Sh. Ravish Sood & Dr. M. L. Meena

Capital Gains, without providing any proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee to submit the information regarding cost of acquisition. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred on facts and law in rejecting the grounds of appeal of the assessee that the reassessment

SHRI BARJINDERPAL SINGH BHULLAR,MOHALI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- 1 (3), BATHINDA

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Sh. Ravish Sood & Dr. M. L. Meena

Capital Gains, without providing any proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee to submit the information regarding cost of acquisition. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred on facts and law in rejecting the grounds of appeal of the assessee that the reassessment

SHRI JASBIR SINGH ,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-I (2), JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Choudhry, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.426/Asr/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12)

reassessed to confer jurisdiction under section 147(a) two conditions were required to be satisfied: firstly the Assessing Officer must have reason to believe that income, profits or gains chargeable to, income tax have escaped assessment, and secondly he must also have reason to believe that such escapement has occurred by reason of either omission or failure on the part

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

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

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. GURJEET KAUR,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- IV (2),, JALANDHAR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our

Bench: Sh. Ravish Sood & Dr. M. L. Meena

Capital Gains”. 10. The assessee requests for leave to add or annex any other grounds of appeal before the appeal is heard or disposed off.” 13. Succinctly stated, the assessee had filed her return of income for A.Y 2009-10 on 30.03.2010, declaring an income of Rs.4,31,880/- a/w agriculture income of Rs. 8,83,880. Information was received

SMT. GURJEET KAUR,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- IV (2),, JALANDHAR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our

Bench: Sh. Ravish Sood & Dr. M. L. Meena

Capital Gains”. 10. The assessee requests for leave to add or annex any other grounds of appeal before the appeal is heard or disposed off.” 13. Succinctly stated, the assessee had filed her return of income for A.Y 2009-10 on 30.03.2010, declaring an income of Rs.4,31,880/- a/w agriculture income of Rs. 8,83,880. Information was received

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. SAVITRI DEVI,BATHINDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(1), BATHINDA

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

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

capital gain by allowing the benefit of index cost of acquisition Rs.1,75,127/-. The addition was fixed amount to Rs.39,15,028/-. The assessee challenged both legal and factual grounds before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) upheld the order of the ld. AO. 4. The aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before us. 5. The ld. Counsel

SHRI KANAV KHANNA,,AMRITSAR. vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, AMRITSAR.

In the result, the ground no- G of appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

Capital Gain to tax by denying the exemption in the course of so-called assessment u/s 143(3) which s effectively a reassessment

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