SHRI NAROTAM SINGH,MANSA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -1(4), MANSA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are allowed

5. The Ld. CIT(A) erred on facts & law in assessing the Long Term Capital Gains by invoking the provision of section 45

SHRI TARLOCHAN SINGH,MANSA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(4), MANSA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are allowed

5. The Ld. CIT(A) erred on facts & law in assessing the Long Term Capital Gains by invoking the provision of section 45

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. 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

5,12,75,000 as exempt capital gain on sale of agriculture land " Issue of nature of land on which capital gain has been claim exempt and evidence of agricultural activity carried on such land " Issue of source of purchase of land under consideration way back in 2008 Copy placed at pages 22 to 24 of the Paper Book

BHUPENDRA FLOUR MILLS PVT LTD,BATHINDA vs. ITO, WARD 1(1), BATHINDA, BATHINDA

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of out above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Shri Udayandasgupta, Jm आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.54/Asr/2025 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) M/S Bhupendra Flour Mills Pvt Ltd. Ito Ward - 1(1) बनाम/ Railway Road Central Revenue Building Bhatinda, Punjab – 151001 Civil Lines, Bhatinda Vs. Punjab - 151001 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaccb-6192-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) - Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Farhat Khan (Cit) – Ld. Dr (Virtual) सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05-02-2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 20.02.2026 : आदेश / O R D E R

capital gains. (iv) A conjoint reading of Section 2(24), Section 2(28A), Section 4, Section 10(37), Section 14, Section 45(5

SH. RAGHUNATH SAHAI PURI(DECD),PATHANKOT vs. THE DEPTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PATHANKOT

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

Bench: Sh. N. K. Choudhry & Sh. O. P. Meenai.T.A. No. 633/Asr/2014 Assessment Year: 2007-08

45 read with section 48 of the Act. 5. The assessee responded by stating that as per the contract, the assessee was supposed to get a built up flat having super area of 2250 sq. ft. apart from cash; as the sales consideration in the contract of the assessee could not be ascertained in money certainly till the determination

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

5. And in the last Para at page 56 of gazette, it is mentioned that as per section 3D(2) of the National Highways Act, 1956, the central govt. hereby declare that on publication of this Notification in the official gazette, the Land specified in said schedule shall vest absolutely in the Central Govt. free from all encumbrances

THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, MUKTSAR vs. M/S. MAKKAR COTTON MILLS,, MUKTSAR

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No.504/Asr/2014 Assessment Year: 2006-07

5 acres 45 maria has to be taken @ Rs. 3,00,000/- per acre (not Rs. 450 per sq.ft. taken while computing the capital gain in the hands of partners/persons who sold the land for which market price has been shown at Rs. 9,95,08,500/-). The cost of land is to be taken from the income tax record

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 is not a charging section under the IT Act and there is no sale either..." ignoring the fact that the addition had been made by the AG on account of increase in capital under the head "undisclosed sources due to enhanced value adopted in the balance sheet of inherited properties on which no tax or reasons for adopting enhanced

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

5. Thereafter, in para no. 5.1 in appellate order the ld. CIT(A) has observed as follows: “5.1 1 As per Section 54B(1) any capital gain arising out of transfer of land, being used for agricultural purposes in the two years immediately preceding the date on which the transfer took place, is utilised for purchase of any other land

M/S. WORLDWIDE FOURTUNE HOMES ,KATHUA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAMMU

In the result, appeal of the assessee ITA No

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

section 45 read with 292C of the Act are attracted in this case and accordingly an addition of Rs. 10,00,000/ is made to the income of the assessee under the head capital gains I.T.A. No. 197/Asr/2023 5

THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, SRINAGAR vs. M/S. ALI SHAH,, SRINAGAR

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri N.K. Choudhryassessment Year : 2006-07

section 45(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called `the Act’). The Ld. CIT(A) allowed certain reliefs and the Revenue approached the Tribunal. The appeal of the Revenue got accepted by the Tribunal vide its order dated 11.07.2012. The assessee went to the Hon'ble High Court. Vide its judgment dated 25.05.2017, the Hon'ble High Court

SMT. AMITA NARANG,DELHI vs. THE DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMMU

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A. No. 385/Asr/2016 Assessment Year: 2007-08

section,—' 4.2 It is clear, therefore, that the cost incurred by the assessee, deduction for which in computing capital gains, short-term or long-term, could be allowed, other than where incurred in connection with the transfer, is that incurred on the acquisition or improvement of the capital asset transferred, i.e., capital costs. Whether a particular cost qualifies

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

SH. SUNIL GUPTA,JAMMU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMMU

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees bearing ITA Nos

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

5 IN CASE OF LATE SMT DHANWANTI DEVI, GROUND OF APPEAL NO. 3 IN CASE OF SMT ANURADHA MAHAJAN AND GROUND OF APPEAL NO. 3 IN CASE OF SUNIL GUPTA GROUND OF APPEAL Without prejudice to above ground of appeal no capital gain is chargeable in respect of additional compensation of Rs.92944/- in case of Late Smt. Dhanwanti Devi

SMT. DHANWANTI DEVI (DECEASED),JAMMU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMMU

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees bearing ITA Nos

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

5 IN CASE OF LATE SMT DHANWANTI DEVI, GROUND OF APPEAL NO. 3 IN CASE OF SMT ANURADHA MAHAJAN AND GROUND OF APPEAL NO. 3 IN CASE OF SUNIL GUPTA GROUND OF APPEAL Without prejudice to above ground of appeal no capital gain is chargeable in respect of additional compensation of Rs.92944/- in case of Late Smt. Dhanwanti Devi

SMT. ANURADHA MAHAJAN,,JAMMU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMMU

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees bearing ITA Nos

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

5 IN CASE OF LATE SMT DHANWANTI DEVI, GROUND OF APPEAL NO. 3 IN CASE OF SMT ANURADHA MAHAJAN AND GROUND OF APPEAL NO. 3 IN CASE OF SUNIL GUPTA GROUND OF APPEAL Without prejudice to above ground of appeal no capital gain is chargeable in respect of additional compensation of Rs.92944/- in case of Late Smt. Dhanwanti Devi