SMT. INDERMEET BAINS W/O SH. D.S. BAINS,BATHINDA vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , BATHINDA

The appeal of the assessee is disposed of in the term indicated as above

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

2(14) of the Act and thus any sale of such land would attract capital gain taxes liability. In the present case, the land in village – Bakarpur, does not fall under this criterion and hence it is an exempted 26 Indermeet Bains v. Pr. CIT agricultural Land from capital gain. In our view, no capital gain was liable

SH. VIJAY KUMAR,PROP. ,MOGA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3, MOGA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

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

section 143(2), assessee, for first time, the assessee stated that due to inadvertence, it did not disclose particulars relating to capital gains

MAX FINANCIAL SERVICE LIMITED ,NAWANSHAHR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is therefore partly allowed

143(3) of the Act was erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of revenue. 4. That the assumption of jurisdiction under section 263 is also bad in law since the PCIT has failed to demonstrate as to how any of the conditions prescribed in Explanation 2 to section action 263 of the Act stood satisfied on the facts

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

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

SH. RAGHUNATH SAHAI PURI(DECD),PATHANKOT vs. THE DEPTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PATHANKOT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Choudhry & Sh. O. P. Meenai.T.A. No. 633/Asr/2014 Assessment Year: 2007-08

section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 8. By virtue of the impugned order dated 04.12.2013, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the levy of penalty on the assessee, observing, inter-alia, as follows: “Briefly noticed, the facts of the case are that the long term capital gain relating to transfer of land by the M/s. Defence Services Co-op. House

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2 , PHAGWARA vs. SH. SUCHA SINGH, PHILLAUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shrilaliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

143(2) was issued on 19.02.2016, which was duly served on the assessee 24.09.2016. A.O. asked the assessee to explain the source of deposit of Rs.8,58,81,037/- made in the previous year. The assessee was also asked to explain why the amount Rs.7,57,91,413/- received as compensation be not taxed according to law. In response

ESTATE OF SH. JAGIR SINGH BHULLAR,AMRITSAR. vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, TARN TARAN

In the result, the appeals of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Choudhry, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.306/Asr/2014 & 591/Asr/2015 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Estate Of Sh. Jagir Singh Bhullar Vs. Income Tax Officer, Through S. Jasbir—Singh Ward-1(3), Bhullar, Tarn Taran, E-250 Ranjit Avenue, Amritsar, Punjab. Punjab.

143(3)/147 of the Income- tax Act, 1961, as well as the Appellant order passed by worthy CIT (A) are illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the facts on records and this illegality pervades over all other grounds of appeal. 2. That facts stated in the assessment order in my case which are not only incorrect but misleading

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, TARN TARAN vs. ESTATE OF LATE SH. JAGIR SINGH BHULLAR, TARN TARAN

In the result, the appeals of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Choudhry, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.306/Asr/2014 & 591/Asr/2015 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Estate Of Sh. Jagir Singh Bhullar Vs. Income Tax Officer, Through S. Jasbir—Singh Ward-1(3), Bhullar, Tarn Taran, E-250 Ranjit Avenue, Amritsar, Punjab. Punjab.

143(3)/147 of the Income- tax Act, 1961, as well as the Appellant order passed by worthy CIT (A) are illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the facts on records and this illegality pervades over all other grounds of appeal. 2. That facts stated in the assessment order in my case which are not only incorrect but misleading

SHRI TARLOCHAN SINGH,MANSA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(4), MANSA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are allowed

2. The A.O. invoked the provisions of 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

SHRI NAROTAM SINGH,MANSA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -1(4), MANSA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are allowed

2. The A.O. invoked the provisions of 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

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

ATC LOGISTICAL SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED ,DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, AMRITSAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee ITA No

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

2,63,876/- was already added. 6.2 In the submission, the appellant has submitted that the decision of the CIT(A) confirming the similar addition made u/s 143(1) was challenged before the Hon’ble ITAT and that the matter has been restored back to AO vide ITAT’s order dated 14.07.2021 in ITA No. 152/ASR/2020. 6.3 I have carefully

SH. RAJINDER KUMAR CHADHA,BEAS vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, AMRITSAR.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Choudhry & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.संसंसंसं././././I.T.A No.28/Asr/2017 िनधा"रणवष"/A.Y.:2003-04 िनधा"रणवष" िनधा"रणवष" िनधा"रणवष" Shri Rajinder Kumar Chadha, Vs. Income Tax Officer, K/105, Dera Baba Jaimal Singh, Ward-4(3) Amritsar Beas Pan:Abipc 5206 H अपीलाथ"Appellant अपीलाथ" ""यथ"/Respondent ""यथ" अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" ""यथ" ""यथ"

gain on sale of properties. 5. Succinct facts are that the assessee has filed return of income on 10.07.2003 declaring total income of Rs. 2,22,940. The assessment was reopened under section 148 vide notice dated 22.03.2010. The assessment was made under section 143 (3) read with section 147 on 13.11.2002 by determining long-term capital

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

2(14). Thereafter, the Assessing Officer computed the Long Term Capital Gain at Rs.3,68,15,000/-. The Assessee had submitted that the sale consideration received by him was utilised for purchase of 24 acres 1 Kanai agricultural land at village Daulatpura, Tehsil Abohar for Rs.3,73,48,255/- and claimed benefit of section 54B. The Assessing Officer denied

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

2,46,99,200/- by holding that Section 49 under the head capital 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

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

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