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 gains as unexplained cash credit under section 68 - Whether Tribunal had rightly concluded that there was no merit in appeal against Commissioner (Appeals) order - Held, yes [Para 4] [In favour of assessee]” 15

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 at Rs.3,68,15

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

capital gain is exempt on sale of agricultural land by the assessee. 5.3 The Ld. Counsel of the assessee explained from the above ‘order sheet entries’, that the ‘latest Jamabandhi and Gardavari’ was obtained by the Assessing Officer in order to substantiate that land before sale was being used for agricultural purposes and further, the Inspector was deputed to make

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

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

Gains by invoking the provision of section 45(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 because no registered sale deed was executed to transfer the land to the partnership as capital contribution Et It is settled principle of law that no immovable property can be transferred without execution Et registration of a registered sale deed. 8. That the adoption

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

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

Gains by invoking the provision of section 45(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 because no registered sale deed was executed to transfer the land to the partnership as capital contribution Et It is settled principle of law that no immovable property can be transferred without execution Et registration of a registered sale deed. 8. That the adoption

SHRI RANJEET SINGH,BATHINDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1 (1), BATHINDA

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

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

capital gains of Rs. 26,62,987/-. Thereafter, the assessee revised the ITR on 27.05.2017 showing total income at Rs.3,39,360/- under the head income from other sources. 1.2 The assessee claimed the above stated amount of Rs.27,96,629/- i.e., Compensation of Rs. 21,51,253/- and Solatium @ 30% of Rs.6,45,376/- in the revised return

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 2(47)(v) of the Act; that once that was so, it could not be said that the assessees were liable to capital gain tax in respect of the remaining land which was not transferred by them to the developer/builder because of supervising event and not on account of any volition on their part; and that viewed from another

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

15 marla which are acquired by the NHAI (ii) To compute the compensation at Rs 2.4 Crore per acre on cultivated land of 8 Kanal 30 marlas. AO is directed to give Section 10(37) benefit on the said compensation by not treating it as a capital gain

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. He further submitted that the Assessing Officer has made the additions on account of increase of capital account from undisclosed sources (as per last para of the assessment order) to which he clarified that in the instant case, the increase in capital account represented by assets has resulted from inheritance of immovable properties and it is very much from

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

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

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 u/s 274 of the Act. We find that the notice dated 22.12.2010, issued u/s 274 read

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

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 u/s 274 of the Act. We find that the notice dated 22.12.2010, issued u/s 274 read

SHRI AMRIT LAL BATRA,SRINAGAR vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX-3, SRINAGAR

Appeals of the appellant are disposed off in the terms indicated as above

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

15. In the case of “Smt. Yamini Khandelwal vs ACIT”, 142 taxmann.com 529 (Kol Trib) vide order dated 27.09.2022 while referring the Judgment of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of “Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Rewashanker A. Kothari”, (Supra) held that “Mere high volume of transactions and utilization of borrowings in purchase of shares could not alter

SH. AMRIT LAL BATRA, PROP.,SRINAGAR vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, JAMMU

Appeals of the appellant are disposed off in the terms indicated as above

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

15. In the case of “Smt. Yamini Khandelwal vs ACIT”, 142 taxmann.com 529 (Kol Trib) vide order dated 27.09.2022 while referring the Judgment of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of “Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Rewashanker A. Kothari”, (Supra) held that “Mere high volume of transactions and utilization of borrowings in purchase of shares could not alter

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

Capital gain at Rs.60,90,052/- and taxed the same accordingly by taking full value of the consideration in terms of section 50C of the Income Tax Act at Rs.1,11,00,000/- for the sale/transfer of 1 kanal and 17 marlas of land. Against the said addition the assessee preferred the first appeal before

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

Capital gain at Rs.60,90,052/- and taxed the same accordingly by taking full value of the consideration in terms of section 50C of the Income Tax Act at Rs.1,11,00,000/- for the sale/transfer of 1 kanal and 17 marlas of land. Against the said addition the assessee preferred the first appeal before

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

gains of business” as against “income from house property” and consequential claim of depredation under section 32 of the Act, being supported by various decisions of the High Courts could not have been termed as erroneous. 9. Without prejudice to the above, the PCIT failed to appreciate that business expenditure as claimed by the Appellant for the purposes of carrying

SHRIMATI HARMOHINDER KAUR,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, OFFICER CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Sh. N.K.Choudhry & Dr. A.L.Sainiassessment Year: 2009-10

15,00,000/- and capital gains be re-computed accordingly. The assessee filed reply on 06.02.2015 stating that the diary does not belong to the assessee and the notings therein are not in the handwriting of the assessee. The reply was considered by the AO but was found unacceptable. The AO has observed that in assessee's own case