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

2] [In favour of assessee]. 13. In the case of Principal Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Mamta Rajiv Kumar Agarwal [2023] 155 taxmann.com 549 (Gujarat), the Hon’ble HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT has observed on exemption of capital gains under Section 10(38) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 as under- “Section 10(38) of the Income

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

2] [In favour of assessee]. 13. In the case of Principal Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Mamta Rajiv Kumar Agarwal [2023] 155 taxmann.com 549 (Gujarat), the Hon’ble HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT has observed on exemption of capital gains under Section 10(38) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 as under- “Section 10(38) of the Income

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

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 2(14). Thereafter, the Assessing Officer computed the Long Term Capital Gain at Rs.3,68,15,000/-. The Assessee

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

2. That while taking the above view, the ld.CIT(A) was not justified in totally ignoring the binding decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajinder Nath vs CIT (1979) 120 ITR 14 (SC), heavily relied upon by assessee, holding that 'when it is left to the option or discretion of the ITO, whether or not to take an action

ATC LOGISTICAL SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED ,DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, AMRITSAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee ITA No

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

capital expenditure33 or personal expenses of the assessee), laid out or expended wholly and exclusively33 for the purposes of the business33 or profession shall be allowed in computing the income chargeable under the head "Profits and gains of business or profession". 34[35[Explanation 1.]—For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that any expenditure incurred

M/S SHANKAR RICE & GENERAL MILLS ,MOGA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE, MOGA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

14 are "Save as otherwise provided by this Act" clearly leave scope for 'deemed income' of the nature covered under the scheme of sections 69, 69A, 69B and 69C being treated separately, because such deemed income is not income from salary, house property, profits and gains of business or profession, or capital gains, nor is it income from "other sources

MR.VISHAL BATRA,`LUDHIANA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

2. That, out of the above amount of Rs. 18,82,729/-, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in not considering an amount of Rs. 4,00,000/- as “Cost of Improvement” in calculating the above said “Short Term Capital Gain”. 3. That, out of the above amount of Rs. 18,82,729/-, the Learned Commissioner

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

2,55,00,000/- Rs.8,00,800/-) may not be added in his total Income In response, the appellant has given online reply. The AO found the said reply not satisfactory. He also stated that the appellant has not mentioned any section under which he is entitled to take market value of the said properties in his capital account without

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

14). (ii) the asset should be transferred as per sec. 2(47). It is also not clear whether the amount shown under the head capital gains is that of the LIC maturity proceeds only. 6.2) Tax treatment of “any sum received under a Life Insurance Policy”: It is important to note that section

THE DHAMAI COOPERATIVE AGRICULTURE SERVICE SOCIETY LIMITED,HOSHIARPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , HOSHIARPUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the appellant are allowed and the order(s) of the Kerala High Court and other authorities to the contrary are set aside

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No.273/Asr/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18

gains, was not immediately required by the assessee for lending money to the members, as there were no takers. Therefore, they had deposited the money in a bank so as to earn interest. The said interest income is attributable to carrying on the business of banking and therefore it is liable to be deducted in terms of Section

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

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee is allowed

gain\n(LTCG) to claim exemption under section 10 (38) was based on a proposal given by\nAssessing Officer, exercise of jurisdiction under section 263 was not justified - Held, yes\n[Paras 8 and 9] [In favour of assessee]\n27.\nThe Ld AR further argued on applicability of clause(a) of explanation 2 to\nsection 263 and relied upon

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

2) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act mi deduction In respect of any expenditure or allowance stud! be allowed to the assessee under any provision of this Act in computing his income referred to in clause (a) of sub-section (1). Explanation, -For the purposes of this section ’carbon credit" in respect of one unit shall mean reduction

SH. SUNIL GUPTA,JAMMU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMMU

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees bearing ITA Nos

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

CAPITAL GAINS NOT LEVIABLE- INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, ss 2(14), 45 8.1 The ld.AR for the assessee placed that the assessment of the deceased person is invalid and nullity. The ld. AO has made mistake not to consider the legal heir during proceeding of the assessment. The power of attorney holder Mr. Sunil Gupta was taken as legal heir

SMT. ANURADHA MAHAJAN,,JAMMU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMMU

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees bearing ITA Nos

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

CAPITAL GAINS NOT LEVIABLE- INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, ss 2(14), 45 8.1 The ld.AR for the assessee placed that the assessment of the deceased person is invalid and nullity. The ld. AO has made mistake not to consider the legal heir during proceeding of the assessment. The power of attorney holder Mr. Sunil Gupta was taken as legal heir

SMT. DHANWANTI DEVI (DECEASED),JAMMU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMMU

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees bearing ITA Nos

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

CAPITAL GAINS NOT LEVIABLE- INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, ss 2(14), 45 8.1 The ld.AR for the assessee placed that the assessment of the deceased person is invalid and nullity. The ld. AO has made mistake not to consider the legal heir during proceeding of the assessment. The power of attorney holder Mr. Sunil Gupta was taken as legal heir

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

2. At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the appellant assessee submitted that the Hon’ble High Court of Jammu and Kashmir vide its Judgment delivered on 14.07.2017 has remitted the matter back to the Tribunal in respect of the Assessment Year 2007-08 vide para 5 by observing that since, we are in any event remitting the matter with

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

2. At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the appellant assessee submitted that the Hon’ble High Court of Jammu and Kashmir vide its Judgment delivered on 14.07.2017 has remitted the matter back to the Tribunal in respect of the Assessment Year 2007-08 vide para 5 by observing that since, we are in any event remitting the matter with