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

section is very wide, but at the same time it cannot be stated to be a plenary power. The AO can assume jurisdiction under the said provision provided there is sufficient material before him. He cannot act on the basis of his whim and fancy, and the existence of material must be real. Further, there must be nexus between

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

capital accretion and not profit derived from an adventure in the nature of trade. 20. In another case of ‘Janab Abubucker Salt Vs. CIT’, (1962) 45 ITR 37- (Madras HC), the Hon'ble High Court held that- "One of the essential elements in an adventure in the nature of trade is the intention to trade; that intention must be present

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

32,89,013/- exempt u/s 10(37) in the computation filed by him during the assessment proceedings and he had claimed Rs. 1,10,00,000/- as exempt u/s 54B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 5. It is prayed that the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer

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 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

32 lac or the amount actually received by the assessee during the year under consideration from the developer qua the sale deeds that have been executed, and as and when any amount was received by the 6 Brijinder Pal Singh Bhullar Vs. ITO, Ward 1(3), Bathinda ITA Nos. 671 & 672/Asr/2019 – A.Y 2008-09 assessee from the developer, the capital

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

32 lac or the amount actually received by the assessee during the year under consideration from the developer qua the sale deeds that have been executed, and as and when any amount was received by the 6 Brijinder Pal Singh Bhullar Vs. ITO, Ward 1(3), Bathinda ITA Nos. 671 & 672/Asr/2019 – A.Y 2008-09 assessee from the developer, the capital

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

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 KANAV KHANNA,,AMRITSAR. vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, AMRITSAR.

In the result, the ground no- G of appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

32,58,783/- in respect of the agricultural land which was compulsorily acquired by the Government and out of this sum, exemption of Rs.3,19,71,372/- has been allowed in respect of 48 Maria in Khasra No. 1444 while the Capital Gain of Rs. 5,12,87,410/- in respect of 77 Maria from Khasra No. 1034/3 has been

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 91 of the Act when terms of a contracts, grants or other dispositions of property has been reduced to the form of a documents then no evidence is permissible to be given in proof of any such terms of such grant or disposition of the property except the document itself or the secondary evidence thereof’. 6. That while confirming

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 91 of the Act when terms of a contracts, grants or other dispositions of property has been reduced to the form of a documents then no evidence is permissible to be given in proof of any such terms of such grant or disposition of the property except the document itself or the secondary evidence thereof’. 6. That while confirming

SMT. DEEPTI AGGARWAL,GURDAS PUR vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

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

32 & 33/Asr/2019 Assessment Years:2014-15 & 2015-16 M/s Raman Kumar Aggarwal Vs. Dy. Commissioner of 181, Adarsh Nagar, Gurdaspur. IncomeTax, Central [PAN: -ABEPA1443Q] Circle, Amritsar. (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A. No. 34/Asr/2019 Assessment Years:2014-15 Deepti Aggarwal 181, Adarsh Vs. Dy. Commissioner of Nagar, Gurdaspur. Income Tax, Central [PAN: -AJLPA5745L] Circle, Amritsar. (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A. No. 35/Asr/2019 Assessment Years

SH.GAURAV AGGARWAL,GURDAS PUR vs. DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

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

32 & 33/Asr/2019 Assessment Years:2014-15 & 2015-16 M/s Raman Kumar Aggarwal Vs. Dy. Commissioner of 181, Adarsh Nagar, Gurdaspur. IncomeTax, Central [PAN: -ABEPA1443Q] Circle, Amritsar. (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A. No. 34/Asr/2019 Assessment Years:2014-15 Deepti Aggarwal 181, Adarsh Vs. Dy. Commissioner of Nagar, Gurdaspur. Income Tax, Central [PAN: -AJLPA5745L] Circle, Amritsar. (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A. No. 35/Asr/2019 Assessment Years

M/S RAMAN KUMAR AGGARWAL,GURDASPUR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER .OF. INCOME. TAX , AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

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

32 & 33/Asr/2019 Assessment Years:2014-15 & 2015-16 M/s Raman Kumar Aggarwal Vs. Dy. Commissioner of 181, Adarsh Nagar, Gurdaspur. IncomeTax, Central [PAN: -ABEPA1443Q] Circle, Amritsar. (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A. No. 34/Asr/2019 Assessment Years:2014-15 Deepti Aggarwal 181, Adarsh Vs. Dy. Commissioner of Nagar, Gurdaspur. Income Tax, Central [PAN: -AJLPA5745L] Circle, Amritsar. (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A. No. 35/Asr/2019 Assessment Years

SH. RAMAN KUMAR AGGARWAL,GURDAS PUR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

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

32 & 33/Asr/2019 Assessment Years:2014-15 & 2015-16 M/s Raman Kumar Aggarwal Vs. Dy. Commissioner of 181, Adarsh Nagar, Gurdaspur. IncomeTax, Central [PAN: -ABEPA1443Q] Circle, Amritsar. (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A. No. 34/Asr/2019 Assessment Years:2014-15 Deepti Aggarwal 181, Adarsh Vs. Dy. Commissioner of Nagar, Gurdaspur. Income Tax, Central [PAN: -AJLPA5745L] Circle, Amritsar. (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A. No. 35/Asr/2019 Assessment Years

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMMU vs. M/S. JAMMU DEVELPMENT AUTHORITY,, JAMMU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of the department is dismissed

Bench: Sh. N. S. Saini & Sh. N. K. Choudhryita No. 498/Asr./2013 : Asstt. Year : 2005-06 Jammu Development Authority, Vs Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vikas Bhawan, Rail Head Tax, Circle-I, Complex, Jammu, J & K Jammu (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadfj7335A Ita No. 494/Asr./2013 : Asstt. Year : 2005-06 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vs Jammu Development Authority, Tax, Circle-I, Vikas Bhawan, Rail Head Jammu Complex, Jammu, J & K (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcp1720E Assessee By : Shri. R. K. Gupta, Ca & Shri. Vasu Gupta, Ca Revenue By : Shri. M. P. Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing :21.02.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.03.2019 Order Per N. S. Saini: These Are The Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee & Revenue Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Dated 06.05.2013, Jammu.

32(1) though a formal deed of title may not have been executed and registered, and he would be entitled to depreciation thereon. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs Podar Cement (P) Ltd has while interpreting the section 22 of the Act has observed that 'owner' for the purpose of sec 22, is person

M/S. JAMMU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,,JAMMU ( J&K) vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMMU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of the department is dismissed

Bench: Sh. N. S. Saini & Sh. N. K. Choudhryita No. 498/Asr./2013 : Asstt. Year : 2005-06 Jammu Development Authority, Vs Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vikas Bhawan, Rail Head Tax, Circle-I, Complex, Jammu, J & K Jammu (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadfj7335A Ita No. 494/Asr./2013 : Asstt. Year : 2005-06 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vs Jammu Development Authority, Tax, Circle-I, Vikas Bhawan, Rail Head Jammu Complex, Jammu, J & K (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcp1720E Assessee By : Shri. R. K. Gupta, Ca & Shri. Vasu Gupta, Ca Revenue By : Shri. M. P. Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing :21.02.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.03.2019 Order Per N. S. Saini: These Are The Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee & Revenue Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Dated 06.05.2013, Jammu.

32(1) though a formal deed of title may not have been executed and registered, and he would be entitled to depreciation thereon. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs Podar Cement (P) Ltd has while interpreting the section 22 of the Act has observed that 'owner' for the purpose of sec 22, is person

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