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

143(2), assessee, for first time, the assessee stated that due to inadvertence, it did not disclose particulars relating to capital gains, it was clear that assessee did not act bonafidely and, therefore, penalty under section 271(1)(c) was rightly levied. SLP was dismissed against impugned order of Hon’ble High Court. 13. In view of the above

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

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

SHRI RAMESH KUMAR ,BATHINDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(3), BATHINDA

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

143(3)/147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act’), dated 22.11.2017 for Assessment Year 2010-11. The assessee has assailed 2 Sh. Ramesh Kumar Vs. ITO, Ward-1(3), Bathinda ITA No. 342/Asr/2019 – A.Y 2010-11 the impugned order passed by the CIT(A) on the following grounds of appeal before us: “1. That the reasons recorded

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

3. return for the year 2014-15 on 31.03.2015 , declaring a total income of Rs.80,270/-, ( which included income from house property at Rs.75,600/-, short term capital loss at (Rs.30,618/-), income from bank interest at Rs.17,667/- and LTCG (long term capital gains) amounting to Rs.2,02, 30,196/- which has been claimed as exempt

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

3. return for the year 2014-15 on 31.03.2015 , declaring a total income of Rs.80,270/-, ( which included income from house property at Rs.75,600/-, short term capital loss at (Rs.30,618/-), income from bank interest at Rs.17,667/- and LTCG (long term capital gains) amounting to Rs.2,02, 30,196/- which has been claimed as exempt

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

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, AMRITSAR. vs. SH. SHIV RAJ SINGH BAWA, AMRITSAR.

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is allowed and the assessee’s CO, dismissed

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 407/Asr/2016 Assessment Year: 2012-13

capital by the company, as contended by it. The amounts received by way of salami were the trading receipts of the business of acquiring leases and granting sub-leases, and the profit therefrom liable to tax as business income. (AY 2012-13) ITO v. Shiv Raj Singh Bawa 3.2 The next issue confronting us is if the disallowance

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

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

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

3 Sh. Raghunath Sahai Puri v. D.C.I.T. Development Agreement. The capital gains arose from the fact that it was a case of transfer of capital asset generally and also in view of sections 2(47)(ii), 2(47)(v) and 2(47)(vi) of the Act. In view of the Joint Development Agreement, the owner had, at the time

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

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

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