INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2 (1), JAMMU vs. SHRI MOHD ASLAM BAGGAR, JAMMU

In the result, the appeal of the department is dismissed

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

c) such transfer is by way of compulsory acquisition under any law, or a transfer the consideration for which is determined or approved by the Central Government or the Reserve Bank of India; This fact is also borne out from the order of the Assessing Officer that the transfer of the land is by way of compulsory acquisition. Order passed

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

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

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

BRODAWAYS OVERSEAS LIMITED,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, 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

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

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR vs. M/S BROADWAYS 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

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR vs. M/S BROADWAYS 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

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

C’ whose shares were allegedly purchased was a penny stock, SLP filed against said order was to be dismissed.” 12. Before concluding, the Ld DR has relied on the Hon’ble Calcutta High court decision in the case of Swati Bajaj [2022] 288 Taxman 403 ( Calcutta ) / 466 ITR , to put forth his argument that in absence of foundational facts , circumstantial

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

C’ whose shares were allegedly purchased was a penny stock, SLP filed against said order was to be dismissed.” 12. Before concluding, the Ld DR has relied on the Hon’ble Calcutta High court decision in the case of Swati Bajaj [2022] 288 Taxman 403 ( Calcutta ) / 466 ITR , to put forth his argument that in absence of foundational facts , circumstantial

LATE. SH. GURMAIL. SINGH S/O. SH. LAL SINGH,SHRI MUKAT SAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF 9INCOME TAX. CIRCLE -II, BATHINDA

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

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

27. Since, the appellant assesse gets relief on merits and hence, the legal issued rendered academic and not adjudicated. In ITA No. 59 & 64/Asr/2019: 28. The appellants have raised following identical grounds of appeal against the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, in ITA No. 59 & 64/Asr/2019 in respect of the Assessment Year

SH. ARASHPREET SINGH. S/O.LATE.SH. GURMAIL SINGH,MUKTSAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX .CIRCLE-II, BATHINDA

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

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

27. Since, the appellant assesse gets relief on merits and hence, the legal issued rendered academic and not adjudicated. In ITA No. 59 & 64/Asr/2019: 28. The appellants have raised following identical grounds of appeal against the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, in ITA No. 59 & 64/Asr/2019 in respect of the Assessment Year

SH. ARASHPREET SINGH S/O. LATE SH. GURMAIL SINGH,MUKTSAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-II, BATHINDA

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

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

27. Since, the appellant assesse gets relief on merits and hence, the legal issued rendered academic and not adjudicated. In ITA No. 59 & 64/Asr/2019: 28. The appellants have raised following identical grounds of appeal against the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, in ITA No. 59 & 64/Asr/2019 in respect of the Assessment Year

LATE. SH. GURMAIL SINGH.S/O. LATE SH. LAL SINGH,SRI MUKTSAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -II, BATHINDA

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

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

27. Since, the appellant assesse gets relief on merits and hence, the legal issued rendered academic and not adjudicated. In ITA No. 59 & 64/Asr/2019: 28. The appellants have raised following identical grounds of appeal against the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, in ITA No. 59 & 64/Asr/2019 in respect of the Assessment Year

SH. ARASHPREET SINGH S/O. LATE SH. GURMAIL SINGH,MUKTSAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CERCLE- II, BATHINDA

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

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

27. Since, the appellant assesse gets relief on merits and hence, the legal issued rendered academic and not adjudicated. In ITA No. 59 & 64/Asr/2019: 28. The appellants have raised following identical grounds of appeal against the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, in ITA No. 59 & 64/Asr/2019 in respect of the Assessment Year

SH. ARSPREET SINGH . S/O. LATE. SH. GURMAIL SINGH ,MUKTSAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE .II, BATHINDA

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

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

27. Since, the appellant assesse gets relief on merits and hence, the legal issued rendered academic and not adjudicated. In ITA No. 59 & 64/Asr/2019: 28. The appellants have raised following identical grounds of appeal against the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, in ITA No. 59 & 64/Asr/2019 in respect of the Assessment Year

SH. ARASHPREET SINGH S/O LATE SH. GURMAIL SINGH,SHRI MUKATSAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-II, BATHINDA

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

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

27. Since, the appellant assesse gets relief on merits and hence, the legal issued rendered academic and not adjudicated. In ITA No. 59 & 64/Asr/2019: 28. The appellants have raised following identical grounds of appeal against the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, in ITA No. 59 & 64/Asr/2019 in respect of the Assessment Year

LATE. SH. GUMAIL SINGH . S/O. SH. LAL SINGH,MUKTSAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -II, BATHINDA

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

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

27. Since, the appellant assesse gets relief on merits and hence, the legal issued rendered academic and not adjudicated. In ITA No. 59 & 64/Asr/2019: 28. The appellants have raised following identical grounds of appeal against the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, in ITA No. 59 & 64/Asr/2019 in respect of the Assessment Year

LATE. SH. GURMAIL. SINGH. S/O. SH. LAL SINGH,SRI MUKATSAR vs. DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -II, BATHINDA

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

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

27. Since, the appellant assesse gets relief on merits and hence, the legal issued rendered academic and not adjudicated. In ITA No. 59 & 64/Asr/2019: 28. The appellants have raised following identical grounds of appeal against the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, in ITA No. 59 & 64/Asr/2019 in respect of the Assessment Year