SH. VIJAY KUMAR,PROP. ,MOGA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3, MOGA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

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

11. In the case of MAK Data (P.) limited Vs. Commissioner of income Tax, [2013] 38 taxmann.com 448(SC), the Hon’ble apex court observed that voluntary disclosure does not release the assessee from mischief of panel proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the act. In the present case, although the assessee has disclosed the long-term capital gains

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

2] [In favour of assessee]. 13. In the case of Principal Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Mamta Rajiv Kumar Agarwal [2023] 155 taxmann.com 549 (Gujarat), the Hon’ble HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT has observed on exemption of capital gains under Section 10(38) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 as under- “Section 10(38) of the Income

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

2] [In favour of assessee]. 13. In the case of Principal Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Mamta Rajiv Kumar Agarwal [2023] 155 taxmann.com 549 (Gujarat), the Hon’ble HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT has observed on exemption of capital gains under Section 10(38) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 as under- “Section 10(38) of the Income

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

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

2(14) of the Act and thus any sale of such land would attract capital gain taxes liability. In the present case, the land in village – Bakarpur, does not fall under this criterion and hence it is an exempted 26 Indermeet Bains v. Pr. CIT agricultural Land from capital gain. In our view, no capital gain was liable

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

section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 8. By virtue of the impugned order dated 04.12.2013, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the levy of penalty on the assessee, observing, inter-alia, as follows: “Briefly noticed, the facts of the case are that the long term capital gain relating to transfer of land by the M/s. Defence Services Co-op. House

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

capital gain by assessee A.O. asked Tehsildar Goraya to furnish. 1. Whether acquired Land of Sucha Singh in Municipal limit if not how far away. 2. Furnish KhasraGirdawari of acquired Land for the year 2008-2009 to 2012-2013 (Copy of letter enclosed as per annexure-4). 9. In response to summons by A.O., Tehsildar sent reply on 5/12/2016

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

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

2. The A.O. invoked the provisions of 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

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

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

2. The A.O. invoked the provisions of 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 INCOME TAX OFFICER, TARN TARAN vs. ESTATE OF LATE SH. JAGIR SINGH BHULLAR, TARN TARAN

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

Bench: Shri N.K. Choudhry, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.306/Asr/2014 & 591/Asr/2015 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Estate Of Sh. Jagir Singh Bhullar Vs. Income Tax Officer, Through S. Jasbir—Singh Ward-1(3), Bhullar, Tarn Taran, E-250 Ranjit Avenue, Amritsar, Punjab. Punjab.

section 53A of Transfer of Property Act. 8. That Ld AO has misapplied the facts and law in treating future and uncertain and unquantifiable benefits as so called consideration for alleged transfer and accordingly he has valued non existent property benefits for levy of capital gains. 9. That, the impugned agreement with the builders/ developers had been canceled

ESTATE OF SH. JAGIR SINGH BHULLAR,AMRITSAR. vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, TARN TARAN

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

Bench: Shri N.K. Choudhry, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.306/Asr/2014 & 591/Asr/2015 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Estate Of Sh. Jagir Singh Bhullar Vs. Income Tax Officer, Through S. Jasbir—Singh Ward-1(3), Bhullar, Tarn Taran, E-250 Ranjit Avenue, Amritsar, Punjab. Punjab.

section 53A of Transfer of Property Act. 8. That Ld AO has misapplied the facts and law in treating future and uncertain and unquantifiable benefits as so called consideration for alleged transfer and accordingly he has valued non existent property benefits for levy of capital gains. 9. That, the impugned agreement with the builders/ developers had been canceled

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 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

sections 149, 150(1) and 150(2). SUBMISSIONS BEFORE THE BENCH 1. The ld.CIT(A) in his above findings, has apparently detracted from the core issue, which he was required to adjudicate by the Bench. In para 4.4 he has reproduced the entire findings of his predecessor as given in appellate order for AY 205-06, wherein it was concluded

ATC LOGISTICAL SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED ,DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, AMRITSAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee ITA No

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

capital expenditure33 or personal expenses of the assessee), laid out or expended wholly and exclusively33 for the purposes of the business33 or profession shall be allowed in computing the income chargeable under the head "Profits and gains of business or profession". 34[35[Explanation 1.]—For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that any expenditure incurred

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 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

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

2,55,00,000/- Rs.8,00,800/-) may not be added in his total Income In response, the appellant has given online reply. The AO found the said reply not satisfactory. He also stated that the appellant has not mentioned any section under which he is entitled to take market value of the said properties in his capital account without

SMT. ZEENAB,SRINAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(3),, SRINAGAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue Department stands dismissed, whereas the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes on the aforesaid reasons stated above

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N.K.Choudhry

Capital gain at Rs.60,90,052/- and taxed the same accordingly by taking full value of the consideration in terms of section 50C of the Income Tax Act at Rs.1,11,00,000/- for the sale/transfer of 1 kanal and 17 marlas of land. Against the said addition the assessee preferred the first appeal before