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

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

gain tax. So, there was nothing illegal in mentioning eligibility of both deductions under income tax act. 18) It is totally wrong on part of A.O. to observe that by claiming deduction u/s 54 (b) f exemption u/s 10(37) becomes redundant. Both deductions act in separate field and require independent specific conditions to be satisfied for claiming them, 10

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

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

section 45(3) of the IT Act, 1961 and assessed the long term capital gain amounting to Rs. 3,20,80,520/- in the hands of the assessee vide assessment order passed u/s 143(3) dated 20/12/2017. 3. The A.O. relied solely upon the sale deed dated 15.07.1981 for computing the FMV of the land

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

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

section 45(3) of the IT Act, 1961 and assessed the long term capital gain amounting to Rs. 3,20,80,520/- in the hands of the assessee vide assessment order passed u/s 143(3) dated 20/12/2017. 3. The A.O. relied solely upon the sale deed dated 15.07.1981 for computing the FMV of the land

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

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

10,000/- in the financial year 2008-09 (On 17.03.2008 and 13.04.2008) and out of which land measuring 29 Kanal 6 Marlas was sold for Rs.5,12,75,000/- on 07.07.2010 to Shri Kewal Singh, Ranjeet Singh and Ranbir Singh, Jalalabad. The assessee has claimed exemption of Rs.5,12,75,000/- as non-taxable capital gains. The Pr.CIT, Bathinda

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

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

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

Capital Gain of Rs. 5,12,87,410/- in respect of 77 Maria from Khasra No. 1034/3 has been denied exemption and thereby Income Tax liability of Rs. 1,07,59,391/- has been demanded along with Education Cess of Rs.3,22,782/- besides interest of Rs. 5,04,468/- u/s 234B and Rs. 11,71,148/- u/s 234D

SHRI BRIJINDERPAL 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 tax only when the same was so received, and not otherwise. Accordingly, the CIT(A) in terms of his aforesaid observations partly allowed the appeal. 5. The assessee being aggrieved with the order of the CIT(A) has carried the matter in appeal before us. At the very outset of the hearing of the appeal, it was submitted

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 tax only when the same was so received, and not otherwise. Accordingly, the CIT(A) in terms of his aforesaid observations partly allowed the appeal. 5. The assessee being aggrieved with the order of the CIT(A) has carried the matter in appeal before us. At the very outset of the hearing of the appeal, it was submitted

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, had applied a rate of Rs. 19000/- per kanal and there is no basis for application of this rate of Rs. 19000/- . It was submitted that this issue of adoption of rate as on 1.4.1981 of the land situated at Village Bhokhra is now settled with regard to the application rate of 1.4.1981 by the department, because

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, had applied a rate of Rs. 19000/- per kanal and there is no basis for application of this rate of Rs. 19000/- . It was submitted that this issue of adoption of rate as on 1.4.1981 of the land situated at Village Bhokhra is now settled with regard to the application rate of 1.4.1981 by the department, because