SHRI RANJEET SINGH,BATHINDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1 (1), BATHINDA

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

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

Capital Gains, arising from Compulsory Acquisition of Land under National Highway Act, 1956, by Ranjeet Singhv. ITO & Ors. relying on Section 96 of RFCTLARR Act, 2013, and clarificatory Circular No.36/2016 (F.No.225/88/2016- ITA.II), dated 25-10-20165. 5

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

capital gain without considering the fact that assessee was a regular investor and has not invested in only one share. 5. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Hon'ble CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld. AO in making an addition of Rs.15

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

capital gain without considering the fact that assessee was a regular investor and has not invested in only one share. 5. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Hon'ble CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld. AO in making an addition of Rs.15

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

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, TARN TARAN vs. ESTATE OF LATE SH. JAGIR SINGH BHULLAR, TARN TARAN

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

Bench: Shri N.K. Choudhry, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.306/Asr/2014 & 591/Asr/2015 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Estate Of Sh. Jagir Singh Bhullar Vs. Income Tax Officer, Through S. Jasbir—Singh Ward-1(3), Bhullar, Tarn Taran, E-250 Ranjit Avenue, Amritsar, Punjab. Punjab.

Section 2(47)(v) of the Act does not apply. 5. It was submitted by learned counsel for the assessee- appellant that whatever amount was received from the developer, capital gains

ESTATE OF SH. JAGIR SINGH BHULLAR,AMRITSAR. vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, TARN TARAN

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

Bench: Shri N.K. Choudhry, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.306/Asr/2014 & 591/Asr/2015 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Estate Of Sh. Jagir Singh Bhullar Vs. Income Tax Officer, Through S. Jasbir—Singh Ward-1(3), Bhullar, Tarn Taran, E-250 Ranjit Avenue, Amritsar, Punjab. Punjab.

Section 2(47)(v) of the Act does not apply. 5. It was submitted by learned counsel for the assessee- appellant that whatever amount was received from the developer, capital gains

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

Section 2(47)(v) of the Act does not apply. 5. It was submitted by learned counsel for the assessee-appellant that whatever amount was received from the developer, capital gains

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

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

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

Section 24 of the IT Act, 1961 under the head 'income from house property'. However, this is not an allowable deduction under the head 'capital gains’ as claimed by the assessee under the garb of Expenditure on Transfer'. Therefore, 5

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

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

5 Assessment Year: 2006-07 the payments and the possession of the properly was handed over to the purchaser dining the F.Y. 2005-06. It was, therefore, submitted that the Long-Term Capital Gain if any earned from the transfer of property is taxable only In the A.Y. 2006-07. The Assessing Officer also could not controvert this argument

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

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 of property, as per registered deeds, as done by the AO in the assessment made in the case of persons/partners who sold the land on behalf of M/s Makkar Cotton Mills, Bariwala. (iii) The appellant craves leave

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 Gain at Rs.3,68,15,000/-. Aggrieved by the said order the Assessee has instituted the current appeal.” I.T.A. No. 354/Asr/2024 6 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

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

capital 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

MESERS EMBROCIA FARMS PVT LTD,PATHANKOT vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6, PATHANKOT

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is (in ITA No

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A. Nos. 561/Asr/2018 & 284/Asr/2017 Assessment Year: 2006-07

5 kanals 8.53 marls not appurtenant to the feed mill unit, the AO is quite justified in computing separately net long term capital gain on the sale of the above parcel of land not appurtenant to the feed mill at Rs.2698636/- [Rs.2714500 less indexed cost of such land at Rs. 15864/- based on its cost price of Rs.3192/-] and thereby

M/S EMBROCIA FARMS PVT LTD. ,PATHANKOT vs. D.C.I.T, CIRCLE-6,, PATHANKOT

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is (in ITA No

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A. Nos. 561/Asr/2018 & 284/Asr/2017 Assessment Year: 2006-07

5 kanals 8.53 marls not appurtenant to the feed mill unit, the AO is quite justified in computing separately net long term capital gain on the sale of the above parcel of land not appurtenant to the feed mill at Rs.2698636/- [Rs.2714500 less indexed cost of such land at Rs. 15864/- based on its cost price of Rs.3192/-] and thereby