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

21. We further note that the assessee has indulged in regular trading activity of various scripts during the same period , through the same broker ( dhanleela being one such script ) and AO has not conducted any enquiry against the stock broker “Max Growth Capital Private Limited” and has brought nothing on record to dispute the evidences submitted by the assessee

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

section 263 cannot be taken into consideration and the Assessing Officer having taken a plausible view, the assessment as framed by the Assessing Officer cannot be considered to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. 8. Again, the Ld. Counsel, relied upon the judgment of Jurisdictional Bench of ITAT Amritsar Bench, Amritsar in the case of Sh. Jaswinder

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

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

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

gain, (iv) It has been categorically stated in the reasons for initiating the reassessment proceedings that the capital was introduced by way of transfer of ancestral land but the status has been mentioned as individual. In view of the above stated facts, the proceedings initiated u/s 147 are void-ab- initio and the notice u/s 147 may kindly be vacated

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

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

gain, (iv) It has been categorically stated in the reasons for initiating the reassessment proceedings that the capital was introduced by way of transfer of ancestral land but the status has been mentioned as individual. In view of the above stated facts, the proceedings initiated u/s 147 are void-ab- initio and the notice u/s 147 may kindly be vacated

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

MESERS EMBROCIA FARMS PVT LTD,PATHANKOT vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6, PATHANKOT

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is (in ITA No

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A. Nos. 561/Asr/2018 & 284/Asr/2017 Assessment Year: 2006-07

capital gain in a sum higher than that returned by the assessee (by Rs.25.90 lacs), on which the impugned penalty is levied, is, as a narration of the fore-going facts makes it clear, on account of non-allowance of the WDV of the entire block of asset, i.e., of both the units, i.e., as against only of the Feed

M/S EMBROCIA FARMS PVT LTD. ,PATHANKOT vs. D.C.I.T, CIRCLE-6,, PATHANKOT

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is (in ITA No

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A. Nos. 561/Asr/2018 & 284/Asr/2017 Assessment Year: 2006-07

capital gain in a sum higher than that returned by the assessee (by Rs.25.90 lacs), on which the impugned penalty is levied, is, as a narration of the fore-going facts makes it clear, on account of non-allowance of the WDV of the entire block of asset, i.e., of both the units, i.e., as against only of the Feed

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

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, in respect to all the land holders, unless some special rates were shown to be applicable, as the AO had not referred the matter to DVO under section 55A of the ACT. No dissimilarity had been brought to the notice by the ld DR between the assessee before us Sh. ITA Nos. 162 to 164/Asr/2019 15 Paramjit Singh

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, in respect to all the land holders, unless some special rates were shown to be applicable, as the AO had not referred the matter to DVO under section 55A of the ACT. No dissimilarity had been brought to the notice by the ld DR between the assessee before us Sh. ITA Nos. 162 to 164/Asr/2019 15 Paramjit Singh

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, in respect to all the land holders, unless some special rates were shown to be applicable, as the AO had not referred the matter to DVO under section 55A of the ACT. No dissimilarity had been brought to the notice by the ld DR between the assessee before us Sh. ITA Nos. 162 to 164/Asr/2019 15 Paramjit Singh

SMT. GURJEET KAUR,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- IV (2),, JALANDHAR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our

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

capital gain earned by the assessee. 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, addition of Rs. 5,33,21,805/- out of addition of Rs. 6,83,21,805/- made by Ld. Assessing Officer, confirmed by Learned CIT(A) is illegal and bad in law since: a). Certifiedof agreement alleged to have been executed by the assessee

SMT. GURJEET KAUR,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- IV (2),, JALANDHAR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our

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

capital gain earned by the assessee. 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, addition of Rs. 5,33,21,805/- out of addition of Rs. 6,83,21,805/- made by Ld. Assessing Officer, confirmed by Learned CIT(A) is illegal and bad in law since: a). Certifiedof agreement alleged to have been executed by the assessee

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