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

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

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

gains is that of the LIC maturity proceeds only. 6.2) Tax treatment of “any sum received under a Life Insurance Policy”: It is important to note that section 10(10D) and section 194DA deals with “any sum received under a Life Insurance Policy” and “Payment in respect of Life Insurance Policy” respectively. Incomes not included in total income. 10

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% on the income of capital gain. Aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) rejected the calculation

HARBANS SINGH,P.O. KHERA DONA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BSNL EXCHANGE COLONY

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed being devoid of merits

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

section 10 deals with deductions and clause (37) thereof deals with capital gains arising from transfer of agricultural land and it nowhere provides as to what is to be included under the head ‘Capital gains.’ The SLP has been dismissed by the Hon’ble Apex Court. Thus, interest received on compensation or enhanced compensation was to be treated as income

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

10 I.T.A. Nos. 477 & CO 32/Asr/2015 & Ors Asstt. CIT v. Broadways Overseas Ltd. & Ors Grounds of appeal in CO No. 17/Asr/2016 “1. That Ld. CIT(A) ought to have held that reference made without demonstrating as to why it was necessary and expedient to do so is bad in law. 2. That Ld. CIT(A) ought to have held that

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

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

10 I.T.A. Nos. 477 & CO 32/Asr/2015 & Ors Asstt. CIT v. Broadways Overseas Ltd. & Ors Grounds of appeal in CO No. 17/Asr/2016 “1. That Ld. CIT(A) ought to have held that reference made without demonstrating as to why it was necessary and expedient to do so is bad in law. 2. That Ld. CIT(A) ought to have held that

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

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

10 I.T.A. Nos. 477 & CO 32/Asr/2015 & Ors Asstt. CIT v. Broadways Overseas Ltd. & Ors Grounds of appeal in CO No. 17/Asr/2016 “1. That Ld. CIT(A) ought to have held that reference made without demonstrating as to why it was necessary and expedient to do so is bad in law. 2. That Ld. CIT(A) ought to have held that

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

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

10 I.T.A. Nos. 477 & CO 32/Asr/2015 & Ors Asstt. CIT v. Broadways Overseas Ltd. & Ors Grounds of appeal in CO No. 17/Asr/2016 “1. That Ld. CIT(A) ought to have held that reference made without demonstrating as to why it was necessary and expedient to do so is bad in law. 2. That Ld. CIT(A) ought to have held that