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

2. Sh. Babbu Singh Rs. 95,90, 100/- 3. Sh. Nachhatar Singh Rs. 87,49,720/- ITA Nos. 162 to 164/Asr/2019 6 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

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

2. Sh. Babbu Singh Rs. 95,90, 100/- 3. Sh. Nachhatar Singh Rs. 87,49,720/- ITA Nos. 162 to 164/Asr/2019 6 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

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

2. Sh. Babbu Singh Rs. 95,90, 100/- 3. Sh. Nachhatar Singh Rs. 87,49,720/- ITA Nos. 162 to 164/Asr/2019 6 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

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

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

148 which is itself time barred as per section 149(1) (b) of the Act. The notice is supposed to within 31.3.2013 but it was served on 06.03.2014. 4.2 The ld. AR invited our attention in the objection placed before the ld. AO which is reproduced as below:- I.T.A. No. 356/Asr/2017 7 Assessment Year: 2006-07 I.T.A. No. 356/Asr/2017

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

gains has been assessed as Rs.3,68,15,000/-, as per order u/s 143(3). 4. The matter was carried in appeal before the first appellate authority. The ld. CIT(A) NFAC, deleted the addition by holding as follows: “3. The Assessee is an individual and is an agriculturist. The Assessee and his family are earning agricultural income from their

SHRI JASBIR SINGH ,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-I (2), JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Choudhry, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.426/Asr/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12)

section 50C (2) of the IT Act. The AO is being directed to re-compute the quantum of long term capital gains on sale of property by taking the sale consideration at Rs.2,03,00,000 and workout the amount of capital gains accordingly.” 5. Aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before

ITO, WARD- 3(3), SRINAGAR vs. SMT. ZEENAB, BEMINA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue Department stands dismissed, whereas the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes on the aforesaid reasons stated above

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N.K.Choudhry

section 2(14) of the Income tax Act and duly held by the assessee for last 17 years. Thus, the addition made by the AO on account of Short Term Capital Gain is deleted. Ground of appeal No. 5: The AO has denied the exemption u/s. 54F of the Income tax Act on the ground that the assessee had neither

SMT. ZEENAB,SRINAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(3),, SRINAGAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue Department stands dismissed, whereas the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes on the aforesaid reasons stated above

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N.K.Choudhry

section 2(14) of the Income tax Act and duly held by the assessee for last 17 years. Thus, the addition made by the AO on account of Short Term Capital Gain is deleted. Ground of appeal No. 5: The AO has denied the exemption u/s. 54F of the Income tax Act on the ground that the assessee had neither

THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, MUKTSAR vs. M/S. MAKKAR COTTON MILLS,, MUKTSAR

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No.504/Asr/2014 Assessment Year: 2006-07

2. The revenue has taken the following grounds: “(i) On the facts & circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in directing to adopt the value of land @ 300000/-per acre instead of Rs.450 per sq.feet e Rs.1,94,40,000/-per acre adopted by the AO in his assessment order passed in :ne cases of persons/partners

M/S. SATIA INDUSTRIES LIMITED,MUKTSAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, BATHINDA

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

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

148, or even section 263 of the Act if requisite conditions are fulfilled. It is inconceivable, according to Sardari Lal, that in the presence of such specific provisions, a similar power is available to the I.T.A. No.193/Asr/2022 38 Assessment Year: 2018-19 first appellate authority. Eventually, Sardari Lal upheld the decision in Union Tyres.” The ld AR mentioned that

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

Bench: Sh. Vikram Singh Yadav & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

gain (LTCG) to claim exemption under section 10 (38) was based on a proposal given by Assessing Officer, exercise of jurisdiction under section 263 was not justified - Held, yes [Paras 8 and 9] [In favour of assessee] 27. The Ld AR further argued on applicability of clause(a) of explanation 2 to section 263 and relied upon the Judgment

SHRI BRIJINDERPAL SINGH BHULLAR,MOHALI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- 1 (3), BATHINDA

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

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

capital gain tax only when the same was so received, and not otherwise. Accordingly, the CIT(A) in terms of his aforesaid observations partly allowed the appeal. 5. The assessee being aggrieved with the order of the CIT(A) has carried the matter in appeal before us. At the very outset of the hearing of the appeal, it was submitted

SHRI BARJINDERPAL SINGH BHULLAR,MOHALI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- 1 (3), BATHINDA

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

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

capital gain tax only when the same was so received, and not otherwise. Accordingly, the CIT(A) in terms of his aforesaid observations partly allowed the appeal. 5. The assessee being aggrieved with the order of the CIT(A) has carried the matter in appeal before us. At the very outset of the hearing of the appeal, it was submitted

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, JALANDHAR vs. SH. SARWAN SINGH PHILLAUR, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Sh. N. S. Saini & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi. T. A. No. 562/(Asr)/2015 Assessment Year: 2007-08

148 of the Act, therefore, penalty levied by the AO on Long Term Capital Gains of Rs. 33 lacs is upheld. 8. Being aggrieved by the said order of the CIT(A), both the assessee and Revenue is in appeal before us. 9. Before us, Ld. AR of the assessee filed copy of the notice dated issued

SH. SARWAN SINGH PHILLAUR,JALANDHAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Sh. N. S. Saini & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi. T. A. No. 562/(Asr)/2015 Assessment Year: 2007-08

148 of the Act, therefore, penalty levied by the AO on Long Term Capital Gains of Rs. 33 lacs is upheld. 8. Being aggrieved by the said order of the CIT(A), both the assessee and Revenue is in appeal before us. 9. Before us, Ld. AR of the assessee filed copy of the notice dated issued