SH. VIJAY KUMAR,PROP. ,MOGA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3, MOGA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

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

5,51,827/-, and thereby submitted inaccurate particulars of income under the head Long Term Capital Gains to the satisfaction of the assessing officer and so confirmed 9 Vijay Kumar v. ITO by the learned CIT appeal in the quantum appeal and subsequently confirmed the penalty order. 12. In another case of “Gangotri Textiles Ltd. Vs. DCIT

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’ u/s 45(5)(a) of the Act and added to the income of the appellant. Ranjeet Singhv. ITO & Ors. 6. The Ld. CIT (A) has confirmed the addition by observing that Notification dated 31.12.2014 was issued by Ministry of Law & Justice wherein sub section (3) of section 105 of the RFCTLAAR Act was substituted by providing that

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/- to Sh. Kamal Singh, Sh. Ranjeet Singh and Sh. Rabir Singh, H.No.407, Guru Teg Bahadur Nagar, Jalalabad. Thus, the capital gain on the sale of this land comes at Rs. 2,90,04,020/-. However, the capital on sale of land was claimed exempt stating the sale of agriculture land. As per report of State

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

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

2] [In favour of assessee]. 13. In the case of Principal Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Mamta Rajiv Kumar Agarwal [2023] 155 taxmann.com 549 (Gujarat), the Hon’ble HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT has observed on exemption of capital gains under Section 10(38) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 as under- “Section 10(38) of the Income

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

2] [In favour of assessee]. 13. In the case of Principal Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Mamta Rajiv Kumar Agarwal [2023] 155 taxmann.com 549 (Gujarat), the Hon’ble HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT has observed on exemption of capital gains under Section 10(38) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 as under- “Section 10(38) 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

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

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

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(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 because no real income arose/received or accrued to the assessee on account of transfer of land as capital contribution to the partnership firm. 6. The Ld. CIT(A) erred

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(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 because no real income arose/received or accrued to the assessee on account of transfer of land as capital contribution to the partnership firm. 6. The Ld. CIT(A) erred

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

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

SH. RAJINDER KUMAR CHADHA,BEAS vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, AMRITSAR.

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

Bench: Shri N.K. Choudhry & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.संसंसंसं././././I.T.A No.28/Asr/2017 िनधा"रणवष"/A.Y.:2003-04 िनधा"रणवष" िनधा"रणवष" िनधा"रणवष" Shri Rajinder Kumar Chadha, Vs. Income Tax Officer, K/105, Dera Baba Jaimal Singh, Ward-4(3) Amritsar Beas Pan:Abipc 5206 H अपीलाथ"Appellant अपीलाथ" ""यथ"/Respondent ""यथ" अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" ""यथ" ""यथ"

gain on sale of properties. 5. Succinct facts are that the assessee has filed return of income on 10.07.2003 declaring total income of Rs. 2,22,940. The assessment was reopened under section 148 vide notice dated 22.03.2010. The assessment was made under section 143 (3) read with section 147 on 13.11.2002 by determining long-term capital

ATC LOGISTICAL SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED ,DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, AMRITSAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee ITA No

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

capital expenditure33 or personal expenses of the assessee), laid out or expended wholly and exclusively33 for the purposes of the business33 or profession shall be allowed in computing the income chargeable under the head "Profits and gains of business or profession". 34[35[Explanation 1.]—For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that any expenditure incurred

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

2(14). Thereafter, the Assessing Officer computed the Long Term Capital Gain at Rs.3,68,15,000/-. The Assessee had submitted that the sale consideration received by him was utilised for purchase of 24 acres 1 Kanai agricultural land at village Daulatpura, Tehsil Abohar for Rs.3,73,48,255/- and claimed benefit of section 54B. The Assessing Officer denied

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

2. That, out of the above amount of Rs. 18,82,729/-, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in not considering an amount of Rs. 4,00,000/- as “Cost of Improvement” in calculating the above said “Short Term Capital Gain”. 3. That, out of the above amount of Rs. 18,82,729/-, the Learned Commissioner

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

capital gain could not be separately computed. Qua the first issue, the ld. CIT(A) held that the issue being now raised was not the subject matter of appeal and, consequently, not adjudicated u/s. 250 in the first instance. As regards the second ground, the same raised a contentious issue, i.e., which was debatable and, thus, outside the purview