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

48 (-) 619768244) Short Term Capital Loss (-) 30618 Apart from these assessee had long term capital gain of Rs. 2,02,30,196/-and the same was disclosed in return of income. 4. That all the transactions were carried through proper banking channel and no cash transaction was involved. 5. Sir, it is brought to your knowledge that assessee regularly incurred

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

capital gain as per provisions of Section 48 of Income tax Act, 1961 by taking the deemed value of consideration

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 gain is exempt on sale of agricultural land by the assessee. 5.3 The Ld. Counsel of the assessee explained from the above ‘order sheet entries’, that the ‘latest Jamabandhi and Gardavari’ was obtained by the Assessing Officer in order to substantiate that land before sale was being used for agricultural purposes and further, the Inspector was deputed to make

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

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

Section 48, the amount recorded in the books of account of the firm, as the value of the capital asset shall be deemed to be the full value of the consideration received or accruing as a result of the transfer of the capital asset. iv. The plea regarding ancestral land taken in individual status is not acceptable although the land

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

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

Section 48, the amount recorded in the books of account of the firm, as the value of the capital asset shall be deemed to be the full value of the consideration received or accruing as a result of the transfer of the capital asset. iv. The plea regarding ancestral land taken in individual status is not acceptable although the land

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

capital gain. 2.3 In response to the query of AO,the Authorized Representative has submitted that as per Section 2(14)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, compensation received for acquisition of Land received by the assessee is exempt from taxation. He hadalso drawn the attention of the Assessing Officer to Section 10(37) of the Income

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

capital gain arising out of the transaction, by virtue of which he has transferred his share in the property of M/s. Defence Services Co-op. House Building Society Ltd., Mohali to M/s. Hash Builders Pvt. Ltd., Chandigarh and M/s. Tata Housing Development Company Ltd., Mumbai on 27.04.2007 for a total consideration of Rs.1,81,25,000/- including the value

MR RUDER MANI WALIA,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2 (3), JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No.257/Asr/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18

48: Cost of acquisition without indexation Rs.42,99,363/- Long Term Capital Gains Rs. 4,41,198/- The appellant has not submitted any reason as to why the LIC maturity proceeds are taken under the head capital gains? There is no submission as to how the cost of acquisition is arrived at? Capital gains come into the picture

MR.VISHAL BATRA,`LUDHIANA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

48 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 out of sale consideration for the purpose of computation of capital gains. However, the arguments of the AR are not found acceptable since as per Section

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

48,255/- and claimed benefit of section 54B. The Assessing Officer denied the benefit of section 54B holding that the same is not allowable against the sale of a capital asset other than agricultural land. The Assessing Officer passed an order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 dated 28.12.2019 assessing the Long Term Capital Gain

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 48, which provides the manner of computation of capital gains chargeable u/s. 45 of the Act, reads as under

ITO, WARD- 3(3), SRINAGAR vs. SMT. ZEENAB, BEMINA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue Department stands dismissed, whereas the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes on the aforesaid reasons stated above

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N.K.Choudhry

section 2(14) of the Income tax Act and duly held by the assessee for last 17 years. Thus, the addition made by the AO on account of Short Term Capital Gain is deleted. Ground of appeal No. 5: The AO has denied the exemption u/s. 54F of the Income tax Act on the ground that the assessee had neither

SMT. ZEENAB,SRINAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(3),, SRINAGAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue Department stands dismissed, whereas the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes on the aforesaid reasons stated above

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N.K.Choudhry

section 2(14) of the Income tax Act and duly held by the assessee for last 17 years. Thus, the addition made by the AO on account of Short Term Capital Gain is deleted. Ground of appeal No. 5: The AO has denied the exemption u/s. 54F of the Income tax Act on the ground that the assessee had neither

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

capital gains alongwith the tax computation on the same was also furnished. That the AO had applied his mind to the same and had made no addition. That clearly the issue 33 A.Y.2015-16 had been examined by the AO during assessment proceedings. He contended that the entire transaction and the mode of computation and every aspect and query raised

SHRI JASBIR SINGH ,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-I (2), JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Choudhry, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.426/Asr/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12)

48 read with section 50C of the income tax Act, 1961. The section 50C has been amended by the Finance Act 2009 with effect from 01.10.2009 is read as under:- “Where the consideration received of accruing as a result of transfer by an assessee of a capital asset, being land or both is less than the value adopted or assessed

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

section 148 on the issue of ‘mechanical application of mind’ by the Ld. PCIT and also there was no ‘Reason to Believe’ that the income of assessee has escaped assessment as per concise ‘grounds of appeal,’ the following submissions may, please, be considered: - a). In all the three cases, since the assessments were sought to be reopened beyond four years

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

section 148 on the issue of ‘mechanical application of mind’ by the Ld. PCIT and also there was no ‘Reason to Believe’ that the income of assessee has escaped assessment as per concise ‘grounds of appeal,’ the following submissions may, please, be considered: - a). In all the three cases, since the assessments were sought to be reopened beyond four years

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

section 148 on the issue of ‘mechanical application of mind’ by the Ld. PCIT and also there was no ‘Reason to Believe’ that the income of assessee has escaped assessment as per concise ‘grounds of appeal,’ the following submissions may, please, be considered: - a). In all the three cases, since the assessments were sought to be reopened beyond four years

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

48 of the Act was liable to be brought to tax in his hands. On the basis of his aforesaid deliberations, the A.O vide his order passed u/ss. 144/147 of the Act, dated 18.03.2014 assessed the income (LTCG) of the assessee at Rs. 1,81,25,000/-. The A.O while culminating the assessment, observed, that involving identical facts, an addition