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

50C of Income Tax Act. 1961 by computing the 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

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

Capital gain at Rs.60,90,052/- and taxed the same accordingly by taking full value of the consideration in terms of section 50C of the Income Tax Act at Rs.1,11,00,000/- for the sale/transfer of 1 kanal and 17 marlas of land. Against the said addition the assessee preferred the first appeal before

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

Capital gain at Rs.60,90,052/- and taxed the same accordingly by taking full value of the consideration in terms of section 50C of the Income Tax Act at Rs.1,11,00,000/- for the sale/transfer of 1 kanal and 17 marlas of land. Against the said addition the assessee preferred the first appeal before

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

50C could not have been invoked as a sale was a composite sale. (b) The land sold was appurtenant to the feed mill, and not, as stated, not appurtenant thereto, so that the 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

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

50C could not have been invoked as a sale was a composite sale. (b) The land sold was appurtenant to the feed mill, and not, as stated, not appurtenant thereto, so that the 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

SHRI BHUPINDER SINGH ( PROP) THE NEST HOTELS & MOTELS,JALANDHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3, JALANDHAR

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

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

Capital Gains in respect of same property and where the explanation of the assessee was duly accepted and proceedings filed and thus there could not be I.T.A. No.250/Asr/2023 3 Assessment Year: 2011-12 two yard sticks for the same reasons adjudicated by the Deptt. and which facts the Ld. CIT(A) faceless has chosen not to discuss even. 6 Without

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

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee is allowed

2 of paper book)\nReply dated 08.02.2021\n4-6\n'6 It is observed that during the course of survey\nproceedings excess stock of Rs.49,98,000/- was found.\nPlease explain source of purchase of excess stock\nwith documentary evidence and explain why the sane\nshould not be added to your income as' unexplained\ninvestment in the form of stock

THE DY. COMMISSIONER INCOME-TAX, JAMMU vs. M/S. HORIZON BUILDCON PVT. LTD,, JAMMU

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue in I

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

gain transactions. The entire onus is on Revenue and the inferences might be drawn in certain cases but come to a conclusion that a particular higher amount was, in fact received must be based on such material from which such an irresistible conclusion follows. In our considered view, in the present case, the Revenue could not lay primary facts, from

THE DY. COMMISSIONER INCOME-TAX, JAMMU vs. M/S. HORIZON BUILDCON PVT. LTD,, JAMMU

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue in I

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

gain transactions. The entire onus is on Revenue and the inferences might be drawn in certain cases but come to a conclusion that a particular higher amount was, in fact received must be based on such material from which such an irresistible conclusion follows. In our considered view, in the present case, the Revenue could not lay primary facts, from

THE DY. COMMISSIONER INCOME-TAX, JAMMU vs. M/S. HORIZON BUILDCON PVT. LTD,, JAMMU

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue in I

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

gain transactions. The entire onus is on Revenue and the inferences might be drawn in certain cases but come to a conclusion that a particular higher amount was, in fact received must be based on such material from which such an irresistible conclusion follows. In our considered view, in the present case, the Revenue could not lay primary facts, from

SHRI AVINASH CHANDER BHALLA,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFIER WARD 3(1), JALANDHAR

Bench: Sh. Ravish Sood & Dr. M. L. Meena

section 50C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and confirming the addition of Rs. 4,70,000/- made by the AO. 5. Any other ground which may be raised at the time of hearing.” 2. Controversy involved in the present appeal lies in a narrow compass i.e. as to whether or not the AO was justified in reopening the case