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

capital gain exemption under section 10(38) - Assessing Officer treated purchase as bogus and added it to total income - Commissioner (Appeals) examined all relevant documents provided by assessee, including bills of purchases, broker account copies, bills for 26 I.T.A. Nos. 346 & 347/Asr/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 sales, and bank statements and held that 10 ITA No. 26/Asr/2024 Rama

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

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

Section 2(14). Thereafter, the Assessing Officer computed the Long Term Capital Gain at Rs.3,68,15,000/-. The Assessee

MR.VISHAL BATRA,`LUDHIANA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

14,82,729/- either as “Cost of Acquisition/Improvement” or as “Expenditure wholly & exclusively in connection with transfer of asset” in calculating the above said “Short Term Capital Gain”. 4. That the above disallowance made in the case of the Appellant is against the facts and circumstances of the Case. 5. That the Appellant craves leave to add or amend

M/S SHANKAR RICE & GENERAL MILLS ,MOGA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE, MOGA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

14 ’Save as otherwise provided by this Act’ clearly leave scope for ’deemed income of the nature covered under the scheme of sections 69, 69A and 69C being treated separately, because such deemed income is not income from salary, house property, profits and gains of business or profession, or capital

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

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 of the assessment order) to which he clarified that in the instant case, the increase in capital account represented by assets has resulted from inheritance of immovable properties and it is very much 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

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

14). (ii) the asset should be transferred as per sec. 2(47). It is also not clear whether the amount shown under the head capital 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

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

capital gains. (iv) A conjoint reading of Section 2(24), Section 2(28A), Section 4, Section 10(37), Section 14

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

14. In the subsequent various Judgments of Hon’ble Courts even after referring the Judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court and Gujrat High Court, it has been decided that the frequency of transaction is not important and what is the main factor to be considered is intention of the investor. 15. In the case of “Smt. Yamini Khandelwal

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

14. In the subsequent various Judgments of Hon’ble Courts even after referring the Judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court and Gujrat High Court, it has been decided that the frequency of transaction is not important and what is the main factor to be considered is intention of the investor. 15. In the case of “Smt. Yamini Khandelwal

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

section 45 read with 292C of the Act are attracted in this case and accordingly an addition of Rs. 10,00,000/ is made to the income of the assessee under the head capital gains I.T.A. No. 197/Asr/2023 5 Assessment Year: 2018-19 u/s 45 of the Act for the above said assessment year. Further the assessee has under reported

SMT. ANURADHA MAHAJAN,,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

CAPITAL GAINS NOT LEVIABLE- INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, ss 2(14), 45 8.1 The ld.AR for the assessee placed that the assessment of the deceased person is invalid and nullity. The ld. AO has made mistake not to consider the legal heir during proceeding of the assessment. The power of attorney holder Mr. Sunil Gupta was taken as legal heir

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

CAPITAL GAINS NOT LEVIABLE- INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, ss 2(14), 45 8.1 The ld.AR for the assessee placed that the assessment of the deceased person is invalid and nullity. The ld. AO has made mistake not to consider the legal heir during proceeding of the assessment. The power of attorney holder Mr. Sunil Gupta was taken as legal heir

SH. SUNIL GUPTA,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

CAPITAL GAINS NOT LEVIABLE- INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, ss 2(14), 45 8.1 The ld.AR for the assessee placed that the assessment of the deceased person is invalid and nullity. The ld. AO has made mistake not to consider the legal heir during proceeding of the assessment. The power of attorney holder Mr. Sunil Gupta was taken as legal heir

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

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee is allowed

Capital gains - Special\nprovision for computation of full value consideration (Revision) - Assessee had filed its\nreturn and same was processed under section 143(1) Subsequently, Principal\nCommissioner invoked revision under section 263 on ground that a land was sold by\nassessee to an entity below value adopted by concerned authority for levy of stamp duty,\nand therefore, there was under

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

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

14 I.T.A. Nos. 477 & CO 32/Asr/2015 & Ors Asstt. CIT v. Broadways Overseas Ltd. & Ors TPO and has upheld in para 39 & 40 of the judgment that LIBOR should have been used for benchmarking interest rate on loan advanced to Associate Enterprise in foreign currency. I further find that in the case of assessee

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

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

14 I.T.A. Nos. 477 & CO 32/Asr/2015 & Ors Asstt. CIT v. Broadways Overseas Ltd. & Ors TPO and has upheld in para 39 & 40 of the judgment that LIBOR should have been used for benchmarking interest rate on loan advanced to Associate Enterprise in foreign currency. I further find that in the case of assessee