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

30,196/- which was claimed exempted u/s 10(38) of the Act. 6. It is revealed from the record that the shares of the said company were purchased by the assessee during the financial year 2012-13 @ Rs.7.30 per share , payments of which has been made through bank channel from Capital Small Finance Bank Ltd, ( A/c No xxxxx03904 ) on 26th

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

30 marlas was the capital asset within the meaning of section 2 (14)(iii) read with section 10(37) r/w section 45 of the Income Tax Act and therefore, anycapital gain

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

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

30 lacs. The written down value shall be taken as per income tax records after due verification by the AO. The facts of order of Ld. CIT (A), Bathinda has been given and income is enhanced to Rs. 50 lacs resulting additional demand of Rs.24,75,000/-. Comments of the AO : 4 It is submitted that

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

section 30 to 35 of the Act; (ii) Expenditure is of revenue in nature nto of capital in nature; (iii) Expenditure is not personal expenses of the assessee; 23 A.Y.2015-16 (iv) Expenditure has been laid down or expended wholly and exclusively for the purposes of business or profession of the assessee; (v) Expenditure has not been incurred for any purpose

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

capital gains on such sale as per provision of section 54B(1)(ii). He further relied on the judgment of jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Gurnam Singh in ITA 616/2007 order dated 01/04/2008 reported in 327 ITR 278 where it has been held by the Hon’ble Court that purchase of another piece of land

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

30,00,000/-, has wrongly been assessed and upheld in this case. I.T.A. No. 356/Asr/2017 3 Assessment Year: 2006-07 6. That the Id.CIT(A) was not justified in ignoring assessee's submissions that if at all the reopening was valid, the Id ITO could not have given a clean chit to other group of partners headed by Shri Jaswinder

SH. SANTOKH SINGH BRAR,MOGA vs. ITO, WARD - 2,, MOGA

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

10 Officer. Hence, in the absence of any independent enquiry made by the Assessing Officer, the amount of Rs.95,83,333/- (112500000- 55000000) x 1/6 has remained unexplained and claim of the assessee of Long Term Capital Loss of Rs.14,30,248/-, as shown in thecomputation of income, has been accepted without inquiry which would have been Long Term Capital

SH. GURBACHAN SINGH BRAR,MOGA vs. ITO, WARD - 1,, MOGA

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

10 Officer. Hence, in the absence of any independent enquiry made by the Assessing Officer, the amount of Rs.95,83,333/- (112500000- 55000000) x 1/6 has remained unexplained and claim of the assessee of Long Term Capital Loss of Rs.14,30,248/-, as shown in thecomputation of income, has been accepted without inquiry which would have been Long Term Capital

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

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

capital gain (LTCG) to claim exemption under section 10 (38) was based on a proposal given by Assessing Officer, exercise of jurisdiction under section 263 was not justified - Held, yes [Paras 8 and 9] [In favour of assessee] 27. The Ld AR further argued on applicability of clause(a) of explanation 2 to section 263 and relied upon the Judgment

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

30% dislocation allowance plus 12% interest per annum u/s 36 of Land Acquisition Act. Against the award, the assessee preferred petition before Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court wherein vide order dated 23-08-2011, the compensation was enhanced to Rs.60/- per square yards along with consequential interest thereon. Pursuant to the judgment of Hon’ble High Court, the assessee

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 by adopting the rate as on 1.4.1981 and other grounds of appeals with regard to not allowing full deduction u/s 54B. 7. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the CIT(A), the assessees before us for the ground mentioned above . Submissions of AR 8. AR had been submitted that notice issued under section 148 on the issue

SHRI NACHHATER SINGH S/O SHRI GURBAKSH SINGH,BATHINDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICEER , 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 by adopting the rate as on 1.4.1981 and other grounds of appeals with regard to not allowing full deduction u/s 54B. 7. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the CIT(A), the assessees before us for the ground mentioned above . Submissions of AR 8. AR had been submitted that notice issued under section 148 on the issue

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 by adopting the rate as on 1.4.1981 and other grounds of appeals with regard to not allowing full deduction u/s 54B. 7. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the CIT(A), the assessees before us for the ground mentioned above . Submissions of AR 8. AR had been submitted that notice issued under section 148 on the issue

M/S ACTIVE TOOLS (P). LIMITED,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -II, JALANDHAR

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

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

SMT. GURJEET KAUR,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- IV (2),, JALANDHAR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our

Bench: Sh. Ravish Sood & Dr. M. L. Meena

30%); (ii). Sh. Suresh Jain, r/o. Krishna Nagar, Civil Lines, Ludhiana (15%) (iii). Smt. Silky Jain, r/o. 127, New Jawahar Nagar, Jalandhar (20%); (iv). Sh. Tushal Goyal S/o. Sh. Surinder Kumar Goyal, r/o. Sukhmoney Enclave, South Canal, Ludhiana (15%); and (v). Sh. Naveen Jain S/o. Sh. Tarsem Jain, r/o. Krishna nagar, Ludhiana (15%). Observing, that though the assessee had entered

SMT. GURJEET KAUR,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- IV (2),, JALANDHAR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our

Bench: Sh. Ravish Sood & Dr. M. L. Meena

30%); (ii). Sh. Suresh Jain, r/o. Krishna Nagar, Civil Lines, Ludhiana (15%) (iii). Smt. Silky Jain, r/o. 127, New Jawahar Nagar, Jalandhar (20%); (iv). Sh. Tushal Goyal S/o. Sh. Surinder Kumar Goyal, r/o. Sukhmoney Enclave, South Canal, Ludhiana (15%); and (v). Sh. Naveen Jain S/o. Sh. Tarsem Jain, r/o. Krishna nagar, Ludhiana (15%). Observing, that though the assessee had entered