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 came to their notice (Para 8 to 10). The aspect of discharge of onus of the assessee by filing documentary evidences, is dealt with at pars 25 to 88 of the order, holding that the burden in the said eases where the facts fanciful rise in shares in a short span of time and thereafter steep fall

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

20%. The Life Insurance Corporation of India (in short LIC) had deducted the TDS on the maturity amount u/s 194DA of the Act. The ld. AO rejected the assessee’s claim and added back the entire amount of Rs.47,40,561/- as total income of the assessee. The ld. AO in processing of return rejected the assessee’s claim

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

10 lakh. Therefore, the ld. AO considering and relying on the section 292C of the Act had calculated the capital gain without considering cost of acquisition on amount to Rs.10 lac and tax was levied @ 20

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

20,00,000/- whereas the cost as per records was Rs. 1,60,000/. Hence, the assessment was made by the then AO at Rs. 18,40,000/- being Long Term Capital Gain arised on account of sale of machinery. 3 Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before Ld. CIT(A), Bathinda

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

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

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

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee is allowed

Capital gains - Special\nprovision for computation of full value consideration (Revision) - Assessee had filed its\nreturn and same was processed under section 143(1) Subsequently, Principal\nCommissioner invoked revision under section 263 on ground that a land was sold by\nassessee to an entity below value adopted by concerned authority for levy of stamp duty,\nand therefore, there was under

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

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1 , HOSHIAPUR vs. SHRI HARPINDER SINGH GILL , HOSHIARPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

20,51,226/-. Section 96 of the Act mandates that on compulsory acquisition of land, compensation provided to the owner of the land shall be exempt from Income-tax: 96. Exemption from income-tax, stamp duty and fees.-No income-tax or stamp duty shall be levied on any award or agreement made under this Act, except under section

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

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

gains derived from eligible industrial undertaking from any business. Whereas, under section 10B the deduction has been provided on profits of the business of the undertaking by a hundred percent export- oriented undertaking. Thus, the Judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Liberty India (supra) and Saraf Exports (supra) relied by the Ld. DR are distinguishable

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

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

gains derived from eligible industrial undertaking from any business. Whereas, under section 10B the deduction has been provided on profits of the business of the undertaking by a hundred percent export- oriented undertaking. Thus, the Judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Liberty India (supra) and Saraf Exports (supra) relied by the Ld. DR are distinguishable

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

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

gains derived from eligible industrial undertaking from any business. Whereas, under section 10B the deduction has been provided on profits of the business of the undertaking by a hundred percent export- oriented undertaking. Thus, the Judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Liberty India (supra) and Saraf Exports (supra) relied by the Ld. DR are distinguishable

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

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

gains derived from eligible industrial undertaking from any business. Whereas, under section 10B the deduction has been provided on profits of the business of the undertaking by a hundred percent export- oriented undertaking. Thus, the Judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Liberty India (supra) and Saraf Exports (supra) relied by the Ld. DR are distinguishable