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

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, all unsupported

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 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 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

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

gains has been assessed as Rs.3,68,15,000/-, as per order u/s 143(3). 4. The matter was carried in appeal before the first appellate authority. The ld. CIT(A) NFAC, deleted the addition by holding as follows: “3. The Assessee is an individual and is an agriculturist. The Assessee and his family are earning agricultural income from their

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

23 DTR 68 (P&H HC) is worth to mention here wherein it was held as under: “Where the assessee sold its agricultural land which was used by it for carrying out agricultural activities after holding the same for more than two decades, gain arising out of sale of such land was held to be assessable as ‘Capital gain

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

23 DTR 68 (P&H HC) is worth to mention here wherein it was held as under: “Where the assessee sold its agricultural land which was used by it for carrying out agricultural activities after holding the same for more than two decades, gain arising out of sale of such land was held to be assessable as ‘Capital gain

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

section 30 to 35 of the Act; (ii) Expenditure is of revenue in nature nto of capital in nature; (iii) Expenditure is not personal expenses of the assessee; 23 A.Y.2015-16 (iv) Expenditure has been laid down or expended wholly and exclusively for the purposes of business or profession of the assessee; (v) Expenditure has not been incurred for any purpose

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 by adopting the rate as on 1.4.1981 and other grounds of appeals with regard to not allowing full deduction u/s 54B. 7. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the CIT(A), the assessees before us for the ground mentioned above . Submissions of AR 8. AR had been submitted that notice issued under section 148 on the issue

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 by adopting the rate as on 1.4.1981 and other grounds of appeals with regard to not allowing full deduction u/s 54B. 7. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the CIT(A), the assessees before us for the ground mentioned above . Submissions of AR 8. AR had been submitted that notice issued under section 148 on the issue

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 by adopting the rate as on 1.4.1981 and other grounds of appeals with regard to not allowing full deduction u/s 54B. 7. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the CIT(A), the assessees before us for the ground mentioned above . Submissions of AR 8. AR had been submitted that notice issued under section 148 on the issue

HARDIK BHARTI,JALANDHAR vs. ITO WARD 4(3) , JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

capital gains at Rs.4,23,900/- in the column No. A2c of the Schedule CG which has resulted in this assessment by CPC, Bengaluru generated out of the system and the according to the AO, the same cannot be reduced by invoking the provisions of section

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

section (4A) of Sec. 132 of the Act. As is discernible from the records, we find that the A.O in his ‘remand report’ that was filed in the course of the proceedings before the CIT(A), had fairly admitted that he had only received a copy of the “agreement to sell”, dated 25.02.2008 from the Dy. DIT (Inv.), Ludhiana

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

section (4A) of Sec. 132 of the Act. As is discernible from the records, we find that the A.O in his ‘remand report’ that was filed in the course of the proceedings before the CIT(A), had fairly admitted that he had only received a copy of the “agreement to sell”, dated 25.02.2008 from the Dy. DIT (Inv.), Ludhiana

SH. GURBACHAN SINGH BRAR,MOGA vs. ITO, WARD - 1,, MOGA

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

gain instead of long term capital loss shown by the assessee and accepted by the AO. The AO has not enquired even from the assessee, the reasons for selling the property at a rate which would yield long term capital loss as a prudent person would not sell property, the property which would yield. But, even

SH. SANTOKH SINGH BRAR,MOGA vs. ITO, WARD - 2,, MOGA

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

gain instead of long term capital loss shown by the assessee and accepted by the AO. The AO has not enquired even from the assessee, the reasons for selling the property at a rate which would yield long term capital loss as a prudent person would not sell property, the property which would yield. But, even

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR vs. M/S BROADWAY OVERSEAS LTD., JALANDHAR

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

gains derived from eligible industrial undertaking from any business. Whereas, under section 10B the deduction has been provided on profits of the business of the undertaking by a hundred percent export- oriented undertaking. Thus, the Judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Liberty India (supra) and Saraf Exports (supra) relied by the Ld. DR are distinguishable