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(38) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 as under- “Section 10(38) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Capital gains - Income arising from

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

capital gain, if any was assessable in AY 2006-07, which claim had been accepted by his predecessor to delete the addition made in AY 2005-06, now the contentions raised by assessee were totally misleading and contrary to facts. 4. The assessee had relied upon a plethora of under noted cases, wherein the findings/directions were elaborately explained

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

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

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

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

3)/144C of the Act dated 02.02.2012 at an assessed income of Rs.4,20,04,589/-. 7. The assesse being aggrieved with the Assessment Order, went in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who has granted major relief to the assessee by observing as under: “8.2 I have considered the observations of the Assessing Officer as made

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

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

3)/144C of the Act dated 02.02.2012 at an assessed income of Rs.4,20,04,589/-. 7. The assesse being aggrieved with the Assessment Order, went in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who has granted major relief to the assessee by observing as under: “8.2 I have considered the observations of the Assessing Officer as made

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

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

3)/144C of the Act dated 02.02.2012 at an assessed income of Rs.4,20,04,589/-. 7. The assesse being aggrieved with the Assessment Order, went in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who has granted major relief to the assessee by observing as under: “8.2 I have considered the observations of the Assessing Officer as made

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

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

3)/144C of the Act dated 02.02.2012 at an assessed income of Rs.4,20,04,589/-. 7. The assesse being aggrieved with the Assessment Order, went in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who has granted major relief to the assessee by observing as under: “8.2 I have considered the observations of the Assessing Officer as made

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

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

3)/144C of the Act dated 02.02.2012 at an assessed income of Rs.4,20,04,589/-. 7. The assesse being aggrieved with the Assessment Order, went in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who has granted major relief to the assessee by observing as under: “8.2 I have considered the observations of the Assessing Officer as made

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

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

3)/144C of the Act dated 02.02.2012 at an assessed income of Rs.4,20,04,589/-. 7. The assesse being aggrieved with the Assessment Order, went in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who has granted major relief to the assessee by observing as under: “8.2 I have considered the observations of the Assessing Officer as made

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

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

3)/144C of the Act dated 02.02.2012 at an assessed income of Rs.4,20,04,589/-. 7. The assesse being aggrieved with the Assessment Order, went in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who has granted major relief to the assessee by observing as under: “8.2 I have considered the observations of the Assessing Officer as made

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

13. As such, he submitted that in absence of any sale or transfer of any capital assets, there is no question of any capital gains and nothing is chargeable under the head capital gains. He further submitted that the Assessing Officer has made the additions on account of increase of capital account from undisclosed sources (as per last para

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

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee is allowed

13,86,384/- as per the working given below: -\nValue of Excess Stock\nTax as per section 115BBE [1777416*60%*1.25*1.04]\nTax paid by the appellant on income of Rs. 50L surrendered in return of income [50L*30%*1.04]\nTax Payable\n17,77,416/-\n13,86,384/-\n15,60,000/-\nNIL\n22.\nThat before invoking the provisions of section

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

capital gains. 19. The Next issue the Hon’ble High Court has even set aside is the matter relating to legal expenses by observing that the Bench allowed the ground without giving any finding. 19.1 The Ld. AR argued that the legal expenses were incurred in order to protect the assessee’s interest of noting right who is the Chairman

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

capital gains. 19. The Next issue the Hon’ble High Court has even set aside is the matter relating to legal expenses by observing that the Bench allowed the ground without giving any finding. 19.1 The Ld. AR argued that the legal expenses were incurred in order to protect the assessee’s interest of noting right who is the Chairman

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 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

13,906/- made by the AO on account of compensation received on compulsory acquisition of land as Short Term Capital Gain claimed by assessee as exempt income under RFCTLAAR Act on the basis that the circumstances in which the appellant had purchased the land as highlighted by the AO in his order are not at all relevant to decide

SMT. DHANWANTI DEVI (DECEASED),JAMMU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMMU

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees bearing ITA Nos

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

13 M Talwal 3. Further, it would be seen that these are agricultural lands because these are situated in villages as mentioned above and the size of holdings. No prudent person would buy such vast tracts of lands in remotest area of Kashmir for any purpose other than agricultural. 4. These lands were compulsorily acquired under section 7(3