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 gains under Section 10(38) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 as under- “Section 10(38) of the Income

MR RUDER MANI WALIA,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2 (3), JALANDHAR

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

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No.257/Asr/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18

capital gains is that of the LIC maturity proceeds only. 6.2) Tax treatment of “any sum received under a Life Insurance Policy”: It is important to note that section 10

SHRI RANJEET SINGH,BATHINDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1 (1), BATHINDA

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

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

capital gains of Rs. 26,62,987/-. Thereafter, the assessee revised the ITR on 27.05.2017 showing total income at Rs.3,39,360/- under the head income from other sources. 1.2 The assessee claimed the above stated amount of Rs.27,96,629/- i.e., Compensation of Rs. 21,51,253/- and Solatium @ 30% of Rs.6,45,376/- in the revised return

M/S. WORLDWIDE FOURTUNE HOMES ,KATHUA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAMMU

In the result, appeal of the assessee ITA No

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

capital gain earned in respect of sale of shop made to be Dr. Vikas Goldy. As per the ld. AO, the assessee was avoiding to disclose the transaction amount to Rs 10 lakh. Therefore, the ld. AO considering and relying on the section

HARBANS SINGH,P.O. KHERA DONA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BSNL EXCHANGE COLONY

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed being devoid of merits

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

gains. 10. The ld. D.R. further pointed out that the department preferred an SLP to appeal against the judgement of Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the aforesaid case where the Court held that section 10 deals with deductions and clause (37) thereof deals with capital

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

gains is not a charging section under the IT Act and there is no sale either..." ignoring the fact that the addition had been made by the AG on account of increase in capital under the head "undisclosed sources due to enhanced value adopted in the balance sheet of inherited properties on which no tax or reasons for adopting enhanced

THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, MUKTSAR vs. M/S. MAKKAR COTTON MILLS,, MUKTSAR

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No.504/Asr/2014 Assessment Year: 2006-07

Section 48 of Income Tax Act, 1961 by taking the deemed value of consideration of property, as per registered deeds. The Ld. CIT (A) after considering the compromise dated 23.04.2005 has held that this document is part of the record and has observed that the entire property i.e. land, building and machinery as belong to the firm M/s Makkar Cotton

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2 (2), MUKTSAR vs. AJAIB SINGH, VILLAGE BHARU

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Krinwant Sahay(Hybrid Hearing) I.T.A. No. 354/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-13

10 kanal and 4 marla and the balance portion of the land was shown as gairmumkin land. As such, the AO concluded that the assessee has sold non-agricultural capital asset worth Rs.3.92 crores during the previous year and long term capital gains tax is payable by the assessee as per the computation of income reproduced in the assessment order

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

Section 24 of the IT Act, 1961 under the head 'income from house property'. In view of that matter, there 8 Vishal Batrav. Dy. CIT being a clear provision providing for deduction of the interest amount out of rental income, and there being no provision for deduction of this amount out of capital gains, the claim of the assessee regarding

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

sections 149, 150(1) and 150(2). SUBMISSIONS BEFORE THE BENCH 1. The ld.CIT(A) in his above findings, has apparently detracted from the core issue, which he was required to adjudicate by the Bench. In para 4.4 he has reproduced the entire findings of his predecessor as given in appellate order for AY 205-06, wherein it was concluded

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

10. The Ld. AR argued that the transactions of sale and purchase of shares cannot be classified as in the nature of business activity as the assessee is actively involved in the various other businesses which are either conducted by him in his individual capacity or as partner. The share business requires full time attention but as the Assessee

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

10. The Ld. AR argued that the transactions of sale and purchase of shares cannot be classified as in the nature of business activity as the assessee is actively involved in the various other businesses which are either conducted by him in his individual capacity or as partner. The share business requires full time attention but as the Assessee

BHUPENDRA FLOUR MILLS PVT LTD,BATHINDA vs. ITO, WARD 1(1), BATHINDA, BATHINDA

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of out above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Shri Udayandasgupta, Jm आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.54/Asr/2025 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) M/S Bhupendra Flour Mills Pvt Ltd. Ito Ward - 1(1) बनाम/ Railway Road Central Revenue Building Bhatinda, Punjab – 151001 Civil Lines, Bhatinda Vs. Punjab - 151001 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaccb-6192-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) - Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Farhat Khan (Cit) – Ld. Dr (Virtual) सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05-02-2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 20.02.2026 : आदेश / O R D E R

capital gains. (iv) A conjoint reading of Section 2(24), Section 2(28A), Section 4, Section 10(37), Section 14, Section

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

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee is allowed

10(38), read with section 263, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Capital gains - Income\narising from transfer of long

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

10 A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16 I.T.A. Nos.32 to 35/Asr/2019 11 A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16 I.T.A. Nos.32 to 35/Asr/2019 12 A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16 I.T.A. Nos.32 to 35/Asr/2019 13 A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16 7. The ld. DR vehemently argued and relied on the order of the revenue authorities. The ld. DR invited our attention

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

10 A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16 I.T.A. Nos.32 to 35/Asr/2019 11 A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16 I.T.A. Nos.32 to 35/Asr/2019 12 A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16 I.T.A. Nos.32 to 35/Asr/2019 13 A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16 7. The ld. DR vehemently argued and relied on the order of the revenue authorities. The ld. DR invited our attention

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

10 A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16 I.T.A. Nos.32 to 35/Asr/2019 11 A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16 I.T.A. Nos.32 to 35/Asr/2019 12 A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16 I.T.A. Nos.32 to 35/Asr/2019 13 A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16 7. The ld. DR vehemently argued and relied on the order of the revenue authorities. The ld. DR invited our attention

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

10 A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16 I.T.A. Nos.32 to 35/Asr/2019 11 A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16 I.T.A. Nos.32 to 35/Asr/2019 12 A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16 I.T.A. Nos.32 to 35/Asr/2019 13 A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16 7. The ld. DR vehemently argued and relied on the order of the revenue authorities. The ld. DR invited our attention