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 10(38) merely by relying on statements of accommodation entry providers which were recorded much before date of survey.” 27 I.T.A. Nos. 346 & 347/Asr/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 26. Relying on the above decisions of various courts the tribunal decided the issue in favour of the assessee in the case of Rama Mittal in ITA 26/ASR/2024

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, INCOME TAX OFFICE vs. VIKAS MEHRA, THE MALL

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed being devoid of

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

gains. He further submitted that the Assessing Officer has made the additions on account of increase of capital account from undisclosed sources (as per last para of the assessment order) to which he clarified that in the instant case, the increase in capital account represented by assets has resulted from inheritance of immovable properties and it is very much from

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

SHRIMATI HARMOHINDER KAUR,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, OFFICER CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Sh. N.K.Choudhry & Dr. A.L.Sainiassessment Year: 2009-10

capital gain' taxable in the hands of the assessee at Rs.31,42,225/-. Therefore, under the facts and circumstances of the case, the addition of Rs. 28,50,001/- made by the AO is found sustainable and hence confirmed. Accordingly, these grounds of appeal are dismissed. 3. The assessee being aggrieved preferred the instant appeal. 4. Having heard the parties

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

34 A.Y.2015-16 “1. Whether the sale effected feel within the definition of slump sale as defined under section 2(42C). As per section 2(42C) of Income Tax Act, 1961, ‘slump sale’ means the transfer of one or more undertakings as a result of the sale for a lump sum consideration without values being assigned to the individual assets

SHRI RAJIV KUMAR KHANNA ,ABOHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-II, BATHINDA

Accordingly, the ground no. 2 of the appellant assessee stands dismissed as not pressed

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

section 143(3)/147, at an Income of Rs.1,97,95,920 (1,63,62,420 + 34,33,500) and Rs.63,000 as agricultural income, after making various additions, as detailed below: - Long Term Capital Gain

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 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.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 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

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

SH. DIDAR SINGH S/O SH. PREM SINGH,KAPURTHALA vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KAPURTHALA

In the result, the assessee succeeds

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N.K.Choudhryita No.542(Asr)/2016 Assessment Year:2008-09

Section 34, but not the loose sheets of papers contained in the two files (Mrs 72/91 and 73/91). 7.8 Further in the case of the Common Cause (A registered Society and Ors Vs. Union of India & Ors. interlocutory application Nos. 3 & 4 of 2017 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 505/2015, the Apex Court dealt with the loose sheets

POONAM MARWAHA,AMRITSAR vs. ACIT DCIT CEN CIR, AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee is allowed

gain\n(LTCG) to claim exemption under section 10 (38) was based on a proposal given by\nAssessing Officer, exercise of jurisdiction under section 263 was not justified - Held, yes\n[Paras 8 and 9] [In favour of assessee]\n27.\nThe Ld AR further argued on applicability of clause(a) of explanation 2 to\nsection 263 and relied upon

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

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

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