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

1) and therefore, the appellant was issued summons us 131 for personal appearance on 14.11.2019 along with bank account and detailed capital account explaining the increase in large share capital during the year. In response Sh. Jatinder Nagpal, Advocate filed online reply along with capital account, copy of registered deed in respect of immovable property and documentary evidence relating

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

1. That the learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT), Bathinda has erred in assuming jurisdiction under section 263 of the Income Tax Act (the act) and thereby setting aside the order of Assessing Officer (AO) made under section 143(3) read with section 263 of the Act with direction to frame the assessment de novo. 2. That the learned

M/S ACTIVE TOOLS (P). LIMITED,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -II, JALANDHAR

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

49,67,901/-. There was difference in valuation of building also, building as per books amounted to Rs. 51,23,155/- whereas as per valuation report it amounted to Rs.1,40,00,000/- giving difference of Rs. 88,76,845/-. To buy peace of mind & to avoid litigation with the department, Assessee made surrender of Rs. 1

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

1 to section 2(19AA) defining ‘demerger’. As per Explanation 3 to section 2(19AA), ‘undertaking’ shall include any part of an undertaking or a unit or division of an undertaking or a business activity taken as a whole, but does not include individual assets or liabilities or any combination thereof nt constituting a business activity. Explanation 2 to section

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

gains is that of the LIC maturity proceeds only. 6.2) Tax treatment of “any sum received under a Life Insurance Policy”: It is important to note that section 10(10D) and section 194DA deals with “any sum received under a Life Insurance Policy” and “Payment in respect of Life Insurance Policy” respectively. Incomes not included in total income

M/S. SATIA INDUSTRIES LIMITED,MUKTSAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, BATHINDA

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

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

gain and it is not subjected to tax under any head of income and it is not liable for tax in terms of section 2(24),28,45 & 56 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. [The taxability of Carbon Credits stands changed w.e.f. AY 2018-19] I.T.A. No.193/Asr/2022 48 Assessment Year: 2018-19 c) Further the credits under

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.

gains u/s 45 of the Act two amounts are necessary. Those are amount of sale consideration and amount of cost. 37. In the instant case, the cost to the assessee of the said nazul land was Nil and the cost to its predecessor which is State Government is not ascertainable. Therefore, the computation provision fails in the instant case

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.

gains u/s 45 of the Act two amounts are necessary. Those are amount of sale consideration and amount of cost. 37. In the instant case, the cost to the assessee of the said nazul land was Nil and the cost to its predecessor which is State Government is not ascertainable. Therefore, the computation provision fails in the instant case

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

Bench: Sh. Vikram Singh Yadav & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

49,25,138/- in the regular books of accounts at cost price. It was highlighted that MRP, as per the Standard Weight & Measurement Act, incorporates taxes such as GST, and no additional charges can be levied from the customer beyond this. It was further clarified that the MRP includes GST element and is further subject to adjustment on account

INCOME TAX OFFICER, FEROZEPUR vs. MS.JATIN AGRO, FORT ROAD

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Physical Hearing) I.T.A. No. 103 & 104/Asr/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2017-18 Ito, Ward-3(1), Vs. M/S Jatin Agro Fort Road, Ferozepur. 152-P, Ferozepur. [Pan:-Aarpm5393F] (Appellant) (Respondent) Sh. Ashray Sarna, Ca Appellant By Respondent By Sh. Sunil Gautam, Cit. Dr

gain from the business within the meaning of section 28(1) of the Act , because in the instant case, the presence of business activity is totally absent. 7.1 The Ld. DR further submitted that in the instant case, PUNGRAIN has also treated the amount paid to the assessee in the nature of rent and has deducted TDS under the provisions

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1),FEROZEPUR, FEROZEPUR vs. MS.JATIN AGRO, FORT ROAD

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Physical Hearing) I.T.A. No. 103 & 104/Asr/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2017-18 Ito, Ward-3(1), Vs. M/S Jatin Agro Fort Road, Ferozepur. 152-P, Ferozepur. [Pan:-Aarpm5393F] (Appellant) (Respondent) Sh. Ashray Sarna, Ca Appellant By Respondent By Sh. Sunil Gautam, Cit. Dr

gain from the business within the meaning of section 28(1) of the Act , because in the instant case, the presence of business activity is totally absent. 7.1 The Ld. DR further submitted that in the instant case, PUNGRAIN has also treated the amount paid to the assessee in the nature of rent and has deducted TDS under the provisions

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

49,720/- ITA Nos. 162 to 164/Asr/2019 6 6. The assessees filed appeals before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Bathinda, challenging the action of the Assessing Officer in reopening of the case u/s 148 and also the computation of capital gain by adopting the rate as on 1.4.1981 and other grounds of appeals with regard to not allowing full

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

49,720/- ITA Nos. 162 to 164/Asr/2019 6 6. The assessees filed appeals before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Bathinda, challenging the action of the Assessing Officer in reopening of the case u/s 148 and also the computation of capital gain by adopting the rate as on 1.4.1981 and other grounds of appeals with regard to not allowing full

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

49,720/- ITA Nos. 162 to 164/Asr/2019 6 6. The assessees filed appeals before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Bathinda, challenging the action of the Assessing Officer in reopening of the case u/s 148 and also the computation of capital gain by adopting the rate as on 1.4.1981 and other grounds of appeals with regard to not allowing full

SHRIMATI. SAVITRI DEVI,BATHINDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(1), BATHINDA

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

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

section 49(1)(iii)(a) for calculating the cost of acquisition of this property market rate as on 1981, the collector rate of the immoveable property for the year 1981 was not available because there was no any I.T.A. No.340/Asr/2019 8 Assessment Years: 2010-11 collector rate prevailing and with the best of my enquiry, the rate of the property

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

49 G. G. Oils & Fats Pvt. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT back, in full, before the year-end, on which date the credit balance of GAPL stood at Rs. 14.48 lacs (including a credit on account of interest, net of TDS, at Rs. 4.67 lacs). 4.3 The question that therefore assumes significance is if the fact of the subsequent repayment

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

1,15,00,000/- was Rs.38,33,334/- (equal to l/3rd share) and the 'long term capital gain' was accordingly calculated at Rs.31,42,225/- as against Rs.2,92,224/- declared by the assessee. Hence an addition of Rs.28,50,001/- was made to the returned income of the assessee as 'Long Term Capital Gain'. The facts of the case

SH. SURAJ PRAKASH,AMRTITSAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 5(5),, AMRITSAR

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A. No. 638/Asr/2017 Assessment Year: 2014-15

Section 49 provides for the cost to the previous owner as the deemed cost of the capital asset transferred to the assessee, which includes a gift u/s. 49(1)(ii). The said decision would thus have no application in the facts and circumstance of the instant case. 5. In view of the fore-going, I have no hesitation in upholding

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, AMRITSAR. vs. M/S BHAGAT INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION LTD.,, AMRITSAR.

The appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes and CO is also allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. Laliet Kumar & Dr. M. L. Meena

section 2(19AA) of the Act, therefore, this business restructuring cannot be termed as “ demerger” as per the provisions of the Act. Hence, assessee is liable to pay capital gains tax. Therefore, it is requested to kindly confirm the additions made by the A.O. and allow the appeal of the Revenue. Furthermore, the matter may be restored back