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 came to their notice (Para 8 to 10). The aspect of discharge of onus of the assessee by filing documentary evidences, is dealt with at pars 25 to 88 of the order, holding that the burden in the said eases where the facts fanciful rise in shares in a short span of time and thereafter steep fall

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

19. in the case of ‘G. Venkataswami Naidu & Co. Vs. CIT’, (1959) 25 ITR 594 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that If a person invests money in land intending to hold it, enjoys its income for some time, and then sells it as a profit, it would be clear case of capital accretion and not profit derived from

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’ u/s 45(5)(a) of the Act and added to the income of the appellant. Ranjeet Singhv. ITO & Ors. 6. The Ld. CIT (A) has confirmed the addition by observing that Notification dated 31.12.2014 was issued by Ministry of Law & Justice wherein sub section (3) of section 105 of the RFCTLAAR Act was substituted by providing that

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

capital asset within the meaning of section 2 (14)(iii) read with section 10(37) r/w section 45 of the Income Tax Act and therefore, anycapital gain arising to the 19

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

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

capital gains. 19. The Next issue the Hon’ble High Court has even set aside is the matter relating to legal expenses by observing that the Bench allowed the ground without giving any finding. 19.1 The Ld. AR argued that the legal expenses were incurred in order to protect the assessee’s interest of noting right who is the Chairman

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

capital gains. 19. The Next issue the Hon’ble High Court has even set aside is the matter relating to legal expenses by observing that the Bench allowed the ground without giving any finding. 19.1 The Ld. AR argued that the legal expenses were incurred in order to protect the assessee’s interest of noting right who is the Chairman

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

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

capital gain, had applied a rate of Rs. 19000/- per kanal and there is no basis for application of this rate of Rs. 19000/- . It was submitted that this issue of adoption of rate as on 1.4.1981 of the land situated at Village Bhokhra is now settled with regard to the application rate of 1.4.1981 by the department, because

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

capital gain, had applied a rate of Rs. 19000/- per kanal and there is no basis for application of this rate of Rs. 19000/- . It was submitted that this issue of adoption of rate as on 1.4.1981 of the land situated at Village Bhokhra is now settled with regard to the application rate of 1.4.1981 by the department, because

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

capital gain, had applied a rate of Rs. 19000/- per kanal and there is no basis for application of this rate of Rs. 19000/- . It was submitted that this issue of adoption of rate as on 1.4.1981 of the land situated at Village Bhokhra is now settled with regard to the application rate of 1.4.1981 by the department, because

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

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

19. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) has exercised jurisdiction under Section 263 without satisfying the twin conditions prescribed by the section and as interpreted by various courts. Specifically, the condition of an order being "erroneous" can only be established if the Assessing Officer (AO) fails to conduct any enquiry, which is not applicable in the present case

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

capital gain' taxable in the hands of the assessee at Rs.31,42,225/-. Therefore, under the facts and circumstances of the case, the addition of Rs. 28,50,001/- made by the AO is found sustainable and hence confirmed. Accordingly, these grounds of appeal are dismissed. 3. The assessee being aggrieved preferred the instant appeal. 4. Having heard the parties

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

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