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 (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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

M/S SHANKAR RICE & GENERAL MILLS ,MOGA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE, MOGA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

capital gains, nor is it income from "other sources" because the provisions of sections 69.69A, 69B and 69C meat unexplained investment, unexplained money, bullion, etc., and unexplained expenditure as deemed income where the nature and source of investment, acquisition or expenditure, as the case may be, have not been explained or satisfactorily explained, Therefore, in these cases, the source

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR vs. M/S BROADWAY OVERSEAS LTD., JALANDHAR

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

capital adjusted margin of the comparables, then additional imputation of interest on the outstanding 15 I.T.A. Nos. 477 & CO 32/Asr/2015 & Ors Asstt. CIT v. Broadways Overseas Ltd. & Ors receivables is not warranted. Respectfully following the judgment of the Honourable ITAT, Mumbai and Honourable ITAT, Delhi, I also delete the addition of Rs76,45,292/- made by the Assessing Officer

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR vs. M/S BROADWAY OVERSEAS LTD., JALANDHAR

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

capital adjusted margin of the comparables, then additional imputation of interest on the outstanding 15 I.T.A. Nos. 477 & CO 32/Asr/2015 & Ors Asstt. CIT v. Broadways Overseas Ltd. & Ors receivables is not warranted. Respectfully following the judgment of the Honourable ITAT, Mumbai and Honourable ITAT, Delhi, I also delete the addition of Rs76,45,292/- made by the Assessing Officer

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR vs. M/S BROADWAYS OVERSEAS LTD, JALANDHAR

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

capital adjusted margin of the comparables, then additional imputation of interest on the outstanding 15 I.T.A. Nos. 477 & CO 32/Asr/2015 & Ors Asstt. CIT v. Broadways Overseas Ltd. & Ors receivables is not warranted. Respectfully following the judgment of the Honourable ITAT, Mumbai and Honourable ITAT, Delhi, I also delete the addition of Rs76,45,292/- made by the Assessing Officer

BRODAWAYS OVERSEAS LIMITED,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR

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

capital adjusted margin of the comparables, then additional imputation of interest on the outstanding 15 I.T.A. Nos. 477 & CO 32/Asr/2015 & Ors Asstt. CIT v. Broadways Overseas Ltd. & Ors receivables is not warranted. Respectfully following the judgment of the Honourable ITAT, Mumbai and Honourable ITAT, Delhi, I also delete the addition of Rs76,45,292/- made by the Assessing Officer

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR vs. M/S BROADWAY OVERSEAS LTD., JALANDHAR

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

capital adjusted margin of the comparables, then additional imputation of interest on the outstanding 15 I.T.A. Nos. 477 & CO 32/Asr/2015 & Ors Asstt. CIT v. Broadways Overseas Ltd. & Ors receivables is not warranted. Respectfully following the judgment of the Honourable ITAT, Mumbai and Honourable ITAT, Delhi, I also delete the addition of Rs76,45,292/- made by the Assessing Officer