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. The action of AO in making additions u/s 69A of the Act and disallowing the claim of LTCG being exempt u/s 10(38) is fully justified. In view thereof, addition of Rs. 2,11,81,016/- made by the AO is upheld Accordingly, these grounds of appeal are dismissed.” 9. Now the assessee is in appeal before

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 is not a charging section under the IT Act and there is no sale either..." ignoring the fact that the addition had been made by the AG on account of increase in capital under the head "undisclosed sources due to enhanced value adopted in the balance sheet of inherited properties on which no tax or reasons for adopting enhanced

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 54B holding that the same is not allowable against the sale of a capital asset other than agricultural land. The Assessing Officer passed an order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 dated 28.12.2019 assessing the Long Term Capital Gain

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

143(1) and computed gross total income of Rs.6042508/-. The addition of Rs.4679856/- has been made on account of proceedings received on LIC maturity which has already been taken Into account under the head long term capital gain. Aggrieved. The assessee filed this appeal. I.T.A. No.257/Asr/2022 4 Assessment Year: 2017-18 6.1) The appellant claims that during the year under

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

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

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

143(1), on a total income of Rs.32.46 lakhs by CPC, Bangalore, treating the interest received as “income from other source”. 5. The matter carried in first appeal by the assessee claiming exemption u/s 10(37) of the Act 61, on the ground that the interest received is a part of the compensation which is exempt

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

143(3) of the Act. I.T.A. No. 197/Asr/2023 2 Assessment Year: 2018-19 2. The assessee has taken the following grounds: “1. That the Ld. CIT, (A)-5, Ludhiana passed order Under section 250(6) of the Income tax Act, 1961 merely on assumptions, without appreciating the factual, legal and statutory position of the Law and facts of the case

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

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

143(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

143(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

143(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

143(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

143(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

143(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 BROADWAYS OVERSEAS LTD, JALANDHAR

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

143(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

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

143(3) of the Act. As per the revenue, the assessee sold the share of M/s Kappac Pharma Ltd. during impugned assessment year amount to Rs. 1,18,79,150/-. The revenue has declared the entire transaction as the sham transaction and bogus during search. The revenue identified various company stock i.e. a stock having very low price,which provide

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

143(3) of the Act. As per the revenue, the assessee sold the share of M/s Kappac Pharma Ltd. during impugned assessment year amount to Rs. 1,18,79,150/-. The revenue has declared the entire transaction as the sham transaction and bogus during search. The revenue identified various company stock i.e. a stock having very low price,which provide

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

143(3) of the Act. As per the revenue, the assessee sold the share of M/s Kappac Pharma Ltd. during impugned assessment year amount to Rs. 1,18,79,150/-. The revenue has declared the entire transaction as the sham transaction and bogus during search. The revenue identified various company stock i.e. a stock having very low price,which provide