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

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 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

6. First, we take up the Issue with regard to treatment of purchase and sale of shares as adventure in the nature of trade i.e.Business income or income from capital gains. The Hon’ble High Court set aside the matter by observing vide para 4 and 5 of its judgement as under: Amrit Lal Batra v. Addl./Dy.CIT

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

6. First, we take up the Issue with regard to treatment of purchase and sale of shares as adventure in the nature of trade i.e.Business income or income from capital gains. The Hon’ble High Court set aside the matter by observing vide para 4 and 5 of its judgement as under: Amrit Lal Batra v. Addl./Dy.CIT

SH. JASPAL SINGH S/O SH. SWARAN SINGH,AMRITSAR. vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,, AMRITSAR.

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A. No. 445/Asr/2016 Assessment Year: 2004-05

133(6) or the subsequent notice u/s. 148(1). The assessee has also not intimated the change in his address, i.e., from that as stated in his PAN, as required u/s. 139A(5)(d); he having shifted his residence to 82B, GF, Ranjit Avenue, Amritsar in December, 2008 (PB pgs. 20-21), so that a notice at the address stated

SHRIMATI. SAVITRI DEVI,BATHINDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(1), BATHINDA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

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

section 55(2)(b) and 55A of Income Tax Act, respectively before calculating the Capital Gain and order of A.O require to be set-a-side.” 3. Brief fact of the case is that the assessee’s case was reopened u/s 147 on basis of information related to sale of land amount to Rs.40,89,010/-. The assessment was completed

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

6. The assessees filed appeals before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Bathinda, challenging the action of the Assessing Officer in reopening of the case u/s 148 and also the computation of 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

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

6. The assessees filed appeals before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Bathinda, challenging the action of the Assessing Officer in reopening of the case u/s 148 and also the computation of 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

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

6. The assessees filed appeals before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Bathinda, challenging the action of the Assessing Officer in reopening of the case u/s 148 and also the computation of 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

SHRI ONKAR SINGH,HOSHIARPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3, HOSHIARPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee ITA No

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

section 133(6) of the Act, 1961 but the purchasers had denied and stated that they had purchased land only for Rs. 15,00,000/-. The conveyance deed was executed on 23.05.2006 by Mr. Onkar Singh and was witnessed by Shri Bacchan Singh and Shri Sukhveer Singh. The statement of Shir Onkar Singh that Rs.44,00,000/- alleged to have

SHRI ONKAR SINGH ,HOSHIARPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3, HOSHIARPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee ITA No

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

section 133(6) of the Act, 1961 but the purchasers had denied and stated that they had purchased land only for Rs. 15,00,000/-. The conveyance deed was executed on 23.05.2006 by Mr. Onkar Singh and was witnessed by Shri Bacchan Singh and Shri Sukhveer Singh. The statement of Shir Onkar Singh that Rs.44,00,000/- alleged to have

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AMRITSAR. vs. SH. JAIMAL SINGH, L/H. SH. PREM CHAND,, TARN TARAN

In the result, the appeal bearing ITA No

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

Capital gains tax in respect of the property at 22 Butts, Crescent, Hanworth, Fetham, London of late Prem Chand sold on 10-11-2006 was taxable in India in the assessment year 2007-08 since the transfer of the said property took place in FY 2006-07, and was not taxable in the assessment year under consideration. Likewise, the other

DR. HARPRIT SINGH ,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Choudhry & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.संसंसंसं././././I.T.A No.195/Asr/2018 िनधा"रणवष"/A.Y.:2011-12 िनधा"रणवष" िनधा"रणवष" िनधा"रणवष" Dr. Harprit Singh, C/O M/S. Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Orthonova Hospital, Near Nari Income-Tax, Niketan, Nakoddar Road, Central Circle –Ii, Jalandhar Jalandhar(Pb) (Pb) Pan: Acmps 7237 F अपीलाथ"Appellant अपीलाथ" ""यथ"/Respondent ""यथ" अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" ""यथ" ""यथ"

133(6) issued to him. The said bank account was opened on 03.02.2011 in which cash of Rs.33,71,720 was deposited during the period from 03.02.2011 to 15.03.2011. The assessee has also earned interest of Rs.12,528 on the said amount. The assessee vide letter dated 05.10.2015 explained that bank account is recorded in the books of accounts

SH. GURJINDER SINGH,AMRITSAR vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1, AMRITSAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

133(6) had stated that the said amount of rs.12866154 pertain to claims received form Apex Marketing on account of damaged goods returned to them in earlier years. It has further stated that they neither gave the assessee claims in the shape of goods or by making payments of the said amount nor did it acknowledge the said claim which

INDIAN TOOLS TECHNOLOGY CENTRE ,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFICER WARD II(1), JALANDHAR

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

133(6) of I.T. Act 1961 was called from the Manager, State Bank of Patiala Jalandhar, regarding whether any interest has been 5 paid by the company to DIPP during the period from 01.04.2013 to 31.03.2014. In response, the Bank informed it had not remitted any amount to DIPP during the period 01.04.2013 to 31.03.2014. Moreover, the assessee has shown

SHRI. NITIN PAL SINGH ,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(3), JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue bearing ITA No

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

capital Gains.” 4. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-Jalandhar has grossly erred in law in concluding that Rs. 24604/- being interest income has not been declared in the return. 5. That the Appellant requests for leave to add or amend the grounds of appeal before the appeal is heard

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(5), JALANDHAR vs. SHRI NITIN PAL SINGH , JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue bearing ITA No

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

capital Gains.” 4. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-Jalandhar has grossly erred in law in concluding that Rs. 24604/- being interest income has not been declared in the return. 5. That the Appellant requests for leave to add or amend the grounds of appeal before the appeal is heard

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3, SRINAGAR vs. M/S TRUMBO CEMENT INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED, SRINAGAR

In the result, the Ground no-1 of the Revenue for ITA No

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

133(6) of the I.T. Act, 1961. In this case, the Assessing Officer has not made any such efforts and failed to take any remedial action in the hands of the Directors, if he was of the opinion that they should have shown iand transactions and Capita! Gain from that, in their returns of income. The issue whether there