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

10(38), of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Cash credit (Share transactions) - Assessment year 2005-06 - Assessee had claimed sale proceeds of shares as long-term capital gain (LTCG) exemption - However, Assessing Officer held that scrip was a penny Sock and thus, he made an addition of same under section 68 - Commissioner (Appeals) observed that shares were purchased on floor

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2 , PHAGWARA vs. SH. SUCHA SINGH, PHILLAUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shrilaliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

15 marla which are acquired by the NHAI (ii) To compute the compensation at Rs 2.4 Crore per acre on cultivated land of 8 Kanal 30 marlas. AO is directed to give Section 10(37) benefit on the said compensation by not treating it as a capital gain

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

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

Gains by invoking the provision of section 45(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 because no registered sale deed was executed to transfer the land to the partnership as capital contribution Et It is settled principle of law that no immovable property can be transferred without execution Et registration of a registered sale deed. 8. That the adoption

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

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

Gains by invoking the provision of section 45(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 because no registered sale deed was executed to transfer the land to the partnership as capital contribution Et It is settled principle of law that no immovable property can be transferred without execution Et registration of a registered sale deed. 8. That the adoption

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

SMT. INDERMEET BAINS W/O SH. D.S. BAINS,BATHINDA vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , BATHINDA

The appeal of the assessee is disposed of in the term indicated as above

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

10 Indermeet Bains v. Pr. CIT since the ‘agricultural land’ was not located in that notified area, the capital gain is exempt on sale of agricultural land by the assessee. 5.3 The Ld. Counsel of the assessee explained from the above ‘order sheet entries’, that the ‘latest Jamabandhi and Gardavari’ was obtained by the Assessing Officer in order to substantiate

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

SH. RAGHUNATH SAHAI PURI(DECD),PATHANKOT vs. THE DEPTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PATHANKOT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Choudhry & Sh. O. P. Meenai.T.A. No. 633/Asr/2014 Assessment Year: 2007-08

10. Thus, the fate of the quantum appeal in the matter before the Hon’ble High Court was not available before the ld. CIT(A). In this regard, before us, a copy of High Court order dated 31.01.2015, in the assessee’s case in ITA No.161 of 2014, has been filed. The ld. counsel for the assessee has contended that

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

section under the IT Act and there is sale either. In view of that, there has been an incorrect interpretation of law by the AO and the addition of Rs.2,46,99,200/- as income is not sustained and is therefore deleted. 6.1 In view of these facts, I am of the opinion that AO was jot justified in adding

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

10 Assessment Year: 2006-07 iii) That whether the ld.CIT(A) was competent, while deciding a case before him, to give direction to reopen a case for another year, not before him. 3. Rather than specifically addressing the above legal issues, the ld.CIT(A), in his impugned order, has taken a generic view that since the assessee had himself claimed

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

Bench: Sh. Vikram Singh Yadav & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

10(38), read with section 263, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Capital gains - Income arising from transfer of long term securities (Penny stock shares) - Assessment year 2014- 15

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

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

M/S STEP BY STEP JUNIOR SCHOOL SOCIETY,AMRITSAR. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), CHANDIGARH

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

gains of business, unless the business is incidental to the attainment of its objectives and separate books of account are maintained by it in respect of such business: Provided also that any 80[notification issued by the Central Government under sub-clause (iv) or sub-clause (v), before the date on which the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2006 receives

MAX FINANCIAL SERVICE LIMITED ,NAWANSHAHR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is therefore partly allowed

gains of business” as against “income from house property” and consequential claim of depredation under section 32 of the Act, being supported by various decisions of the High Courts could not have been termed as erroneous. 9. Without prejudice to the above, the PCIT failed to appreciate that business expenditure as claimed by the Appellant for the purposes of carrying

SH. SARWAN SINGH PHILLAUR,JALANDHAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Sh. N. S. Saini & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi. T. A. No. 562/(Asr)/2015 Assessment Year: 2007-08

Capital Gains of Rs. 33 lacs is upheld. 8. Being aggrieved by the said order of the CIT(A), both the assessee and Revenue is in appeal before us. 9. Before us, Ld. AR of the assessee filed copy of the notice dated issued u/s 274 of the Act. We find that the notice dated 22.12.2010, issued u/s 274 read

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, JALANDHAR vs. SH. SARWAN SINGH PHILLAUR, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Sh. N. S. Saini & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi. T. A. No. 562/(Asr)/2015 Assessment Year: 2007-08

Capital Gains of Rs. 33 lacs is upheld. 8. Being aggrieved by the said order of the CIT(A), both the assessee and Revenue is in appeal before us. 9. Before us, Ld. AR of the assessee filed copy of the notice dated issued u/s 274 of the Act. We find that the notice dated 22.12.2010, issued u/s 274 read

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

15 Kanal 13 Marlas comprise in Khasra no. 1034/3 was not put to use for agricultural purposes for the crop year 2002-03 to 2008-09 and balance land of 11 Kanal 16 Marlas was not put to use to agriculture purposes for the crop year 2009-10. In evidence Khasra no. 1444 was cultivated land and the other