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

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 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

SHRI NAROTAM 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

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 , PHAGWARA vs. SH. SUCHA SINGH, PHILLAUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shrilaliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

22 kanal 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

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

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

capital gains on such sale as per provision of section 54B(1)(ii). He further relied on the judgment of jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Gurnam Singh in ITA 616/2007 order dated 01/04/2008 reported in 327 ITR 278 where it has been held by the Hon’ble Court that purchase of another piece of land

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

M/S G G OILS & FATS PVT.LTD ,BATHINDA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BATHINDA

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi. T. A. No. 508/Asr/2017 Assessment Year: 2014-15

gains’; to section 23A(1), providing an artificial dividend payout at a minimum of 60%, lest the shortfall therein be liable to super-tax, i.e., restraining the company from accumulating its’ profit beyond 40% to build up reserves or to provide for 25 G. G. Oils & Fats Pvt. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT capital expenditure

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.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 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

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

DR. HARPRIT SINGH ,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Choudhry & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.संसंसंसं././././I.T.A No.195/Asr/2018 िनधा"रणवष"/A.Y.:2011-12 िनधा"रणवष" िनधा"रणवष" िनधा"रणवष" Dr. Harprit Singh, C/O M/S. Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Orthonova Hospital, Near Nari Income-Tax, Niketan, Nakoddar Road, Central Circle –Ii, Jalandhar Jalandhar(Pb) (Pb) Pan: Acmps 7237 F अपीलाथ"Appellant अपीलाथ" ""यथ"/Respondent ""यथ" अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" ""यथ" ""यथ"

gain, it was not open to the Revenue to seek to bring it a tax under the revenue receipt. There can be no manner of doubt that what is in the nature of capital receipt, cannot be brought to tax by resorting to Section 10 (3) read with section 56 of the Act.” Therefore, Learned Counsel argued that when