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

reopen assessment, though wide, are not plenary-Interest allowed as deduction in original assessment subsequently ITO found that creditors were name-lenders-Confession from creditors There was nothing to show that the confession related to a loan advanced to assessee-The live link or close nexus between material before ITO and belief he was to form regarding escapement of income

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

reopening of case for another year, while deciding an appeal before him. 5. That the long-term capital gain of Rs.1,70,00,000/-, by assuming the sale price of 'Citi Plaza' building at Rs.4 crores, based on a fake and unproved document, against the actual sale price of Rs.2,30,00,000/-, has wrongly been assessed

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

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

reopening the assessment by observing in para 4.2 of the impugned order as under: 4.2 I have given careful consideration to the contentions above and find that exactly identical objections were filed before the Assessing Officer in the assessment proceedings as has been mentioned in paragraph 2.1 of the assessment order. The objections of the appellant were

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

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

reopening the assessment by observing in para 4.2 of the impugned order as under: 4.2 I have given careful consideration to the contentions above and find that exactly identical objections were filed before the Assessing Officer in the assessment proceedings as has been mentioned in paragraph 2.1 of the assessment order. The objections of the appellant were

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)

capital gains accordingly.” 5. Aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us. The solitary grievance of the assessee in this appeal is that reopening of assessment

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 Assessed 1. Sh. Boota Singh Rs. 95,90, 100/- 2. Sh. Babbu Singh Rs. 95,90, 100/- 3. Sh. Nachhatar Singh Rs. 87,49,720/- ITA Nos. 162 to 164/Asr/2019 6 6. The assessees filed appeals before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Bathinda, challenging the action of the Assessing Officer in reopening

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 Assessed 1. Sh. Boota Singh Rs. 95,90, 100/- 2. Sh. Babbu Singh Rs. 95,90, 100/- 3. Sh. Nachhatar Singh Rs. 87,49,720/- ITA Nos. 162 to 164/Asr/2019 6 6. The assessees filed appeals before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Bathinda, challenging the action of the Assessing Officer in reopening

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 Assessed 1. Sh. Boota Singh Rs. 95,90, 100/- 2. Sh. Babbu Singh Rs. 95,90, 100/- 3. Sh. Nachhatar Singh Rs. 87,49,720/- ITA Nos. 162 to 164/Asr/2019 6 6. The assessees filed appeals before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Bathinda, challenging the action of the Assessing Officer in reopening

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

reopening of the assessment u/s 148. The relevant paragraph of the assessment order was read out and is reproduced as below: “As per the direction of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Jalandhar, the proceedings u/s 147/148 were initiated against the assessee. The notice u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated 17.03.2017 was issued

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

reopening before the AO and that nature of capital for capital gains being claimed as 7 Sukhdev Singh v. ITO agricultural land etc. after considering the written submission of the assesse

ITO, WARD- 3(3), SRINAGAR vs. SMT. ZEENAB, BEMINA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue Department stands dismissed, whereas the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes on the aforesaid reasons stated above

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N.K.Choudhry

Capital gain at Rs.60,90,052/- and taxed the same accordingly by taking full value of the consideration in terms of section 50C of the Income Tax Act at Rs.1,11,00,000/- for the sale/transfer of 1 kanal and 17 marlas of land. Against the said addition the assessee preferred the first appeal before

SMT. ZEENAB,SRINAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(3),, SRINAGAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue Department stands dismissed, whereas the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes on the aforesaid reasons stated above

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N.K.Choudhry

Capital gain at Rs.60,90,052/- and taxed the same accordingly by taking full value of the consideration in terms of section 50C of the Income Tax Act at Rs.1,11,00,000/- for the sale/transfer of 1 kanal and 17 marlas of land. Against the said addition the assessee preferred the first appeal before

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

In the result, both the appeals are disposed off in the terms indicated as above

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

reopened based upon the fact that there were unexplained cash deposit in their bank account which have not been explained. The CIT(A) has discussed that the contention of the appellants would have been considered if the Assessing Officer was bringing to tax sale consideration/capital gains of sale of agricultural land belonging to HUF in the hands of individual appellant

SHRIMATI MANJIT KAUR,BATHINDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2 (1), BATHINDA

In the result, both the appeals are disposed off in the terms indicated as above

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

reopened based upon the fact that there were unexplained cash deposit in their bank account which have not been explained. The CIT(A) has discussed that the contention of the appellants would have been considered if the Assessing Officer was bringing to tax sale consideration/capital gains of sale of agricultural land belonging to HUF in the hands of individual appellant

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

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

MOHMMAD. MUZAFFAR. BEIGH,,SRINAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(5), SRINAGAR

In the result, the grounds No

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

reopened u/s 148 on basis of the information from Annual Information Report/Central Information Branch for investment in purchase of share/mutual funds/RBI Bonds aggregating to amount of Rs.1,79,91,721/-. The investment was made in previous years. The ld. AO during assessment calculated the purchase of shares invested by the assessee amount of Rs.5 lac and the capital gain

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 Gain (“LTCG”, for short) had escaped assessment, reopened his case u/s 147 of the Act. Observing, that the Notice