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

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

capital gain. [Counsel] 8.1 It was further submitted that the additional evidence relating to the sale instance of the comparable cases go to the root of the matter and the assessee was prevented by the reasonable cause to furnish those documents during the course of assessment proceedings as well as the first appellate proceedings as the assessee could not procure

SH. SARJU MITTAL,KATHUA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, KATHUA

In the result, these appeals of the assessees are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No. 503/Asr/2017 Assessment Year: 2011-12

section 50 C of the act, hence the AO has adopted ₹ 4,050,000 as deemed to be the value of consideration as the assessee was being co-owner, having half share in the said property for the purpose of Computing capital gains and accordingly computed long- term capital gains where the AO has rejected the assessee’s claim

NEERAJ MITTAL,KATHUA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , KATHUA

In the result, these appeals of the assessees are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No. 503/Asr/2017 Assessment Year: 2011-12

section 50 C of the act, hence the AO has adopted ₹ 4,050,000 as deemed to be the value of consideration as the assessee was being co-owner, having half share in the said property for the purpose of Computing capital gains and accordingly computed long- term capital gains where the AO has rejected the assessee’s claim

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

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

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

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

gains derived from eligible industrial undertaking from any business. Whereas, under section 10B the deduction has been provided on profits of the business of the undertaking by a hundred percent export- oriented undertaking. Thus, the Judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Liberty India (supra) and Saraf Exports (supra) relied by the Ld. DR are distinguishable

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR vs. M/S BROADWAY OVERSEAS LTD., JALANDHAR

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

gains derived from eligible industrial undertaking from any business. Whereas, under section 10B the deduction has been provided on profits of the business of the undertaking by a hundred percent export- oriented undertaking. Thus, the Judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Liberty India (supra) and Saraf Exports (supra) relied by the Ld. DR are distinguishable

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

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

gains derived from eligible industrial undertaking from any business. Whereas, under section 10B the deduction has been provided on profits of the business of the undertaking by a hundred percent export- oriented undertaking. Thus, the Judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Liberty India (supra) and Saraf Exports (supra) relied by the Ld. DR are distinguishable

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

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

gains derived from eligible industrial undertaking from any business. Whereas, under section 10B the deduction has been provided on profits of the business of the undertaking by a hundred percent export- oriented undertaking. Thus, the Judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Liberty India (supra) and Saraf Exports (supra) relied by the Ld. DR are distinguishable

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR vs. M/S BROADWAY OVERSEAS LTD., JALANDHAR

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

gains derived from eligible industrial undertaking from any business. Whereas, under section 10B the deduction has been provided on profits of the business of the undertaking by a hundred percent export- oriented undertaking. Thus, the Judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Liberty India (supra) and Saraf Exports (supra) relied by the Ld. DR are distinguishable

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR vs. M/S BROADWAY OVERSEAS LTD., JALANDHAR

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

gains derived from eligible industrial undertaking from any business. Whereas, under section 10B the deduction has been provided on profits of the business of the undertaking by a hundred percent export- oriented undertaking. Thus, the Judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Liberty India (supra) and Saraf Exports (supra) relied by the Ld. DR are distinguishable

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR vs. M/S BROADWAY OVERSEAS LTD., JALANDHAR

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

gains derived from eligible industrial undertaking from any business. Whereas, under section 10B the deduction has been provided on profits of the business of the undertaking by a hundred percent export- oriented undertaking. Thus, the Judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Liberty India (supra) and Saraf Exports (supra) relied by the Ld. DR are distinguishable

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -2 (1), AMRITSAR vs. MS. SAVITA BANSAL, THROUGH LEGAL HEIR SH. PARVEEN KUMAR BANSAL, AMRITSAR

In the result, the revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Udayan Das Gupta, Jm 1. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 240/Asr/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Income Tax Officer Smt. Savita Bansal Ward-2(1) बनाम/ (Through L/H Shri Parveen Kumar Bansal) Amritsar 143001 H.No. 272, Green Avenue Vs. Amritsar-143001. "थायीलेखासं./Pan. Abmpb-3594-K (Assessee) / Acnpk-4131-D (Lh) (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 2. Cross Objection No. 1/Amritsar/2024 (In Ita No. 240/Asr/2023) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Smt. Savita Bansal Income Tax Officer बनाम/ (Through L/H Shri Parveen Kumar Bansal) Ward-2(1) H.No. 272, Green Avenue Amritsar 143001 Vs. Amritsar-143001. "थायीलेखासं./Pan. Abmpb-3594-K (Assessee) / Acnpk-4131-D (Lh) (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/Appellant By : Dr Rakesh Gupta (Advocate) –Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri B. Srinivas Kumar (Cit) – Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10-07-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21-08-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () Aforesaid Appeal By Revenue For Assessment Year (Ay) 2016- 1. 17 Arises Out Of An Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax

capital gains. Accordingly, a show-cause notice was issued. The Ld. AO observed that there was abnormal increase in the price of the scrips which could be possible only if the prices were rigged. In the absence of any rebuttal as forthcoming from the assessee, the LTCG so earned for Rs.482.86 Lacs & claimed exempt u/s 10(38) was considered

SH. JASPAL SINGH S/O SH. SWARAN SINGH,AMRITSAR. vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,, AMRITSAR.

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A. No. 445/Asr/2016 Assessment Year: 2004-05

section 149 of the Act. The use of separate and distinct words in the statute, it observed, was with a view to remedy the evil perpetrated by the long 9 Jaspal Singh v. ITO delayed and studied avoidance of the service of the notices by the assessees whose income had escaped assessment. Here one cannot help but refer

SHRI SALIL BHATIA,AMRITSAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeal is allowed

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

section 132A, of the income tax act, 1961. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO received certain information from the investigation wing, and consequently, he raised the issue of long- term capital gains on the sale of shares in the case of assessee. He contended that in view of the principle laid down by the Honorable Supreme Court

SH. VIJAY KUMAR AGGARWAL, PROP.,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Sh. N. S. Saini & Sh. N. K. Choudhryita No. 38/Asr./2017 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ita No. 77/Asr./2017 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13

capitalized Rs. 34,88,666 and debited Rs 1,26,79,130 in the P&L a/c. This amount was also not paid due to shortage of funds. The assessee-company however, preferred the request before 31st March, 1989, to the financial institutions to defer the payment of the concerned interest. The ICICI Ltd. agreed to defer the collection

SHRI VIJAY KUMAR AGGARWAL,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFICER,WARD II(4), JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Sh. N. S. Saini & Sh. N. K. Choudhryita No. 38/Asr./2017 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ita No. 77/Asr./2017 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13

capitalized Rs. 34,88,666 and debited Rs 1,26,79,130 in the P&L a/c. This amount was also not paid due to shortage of funds. The assessee-company however, preferred the request before 31st March, 1989, to the financial institutions to defer the payment of the concerned interest. The ICICI Ltd. agreed to defer the collection