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

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

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

Capital gains - Special provision for computation of full value consideration (Revision) - Assessee had filed its return and same was processed under section 143(1) Subsequently, Principal Commissioner invoked revision under section 263 on ground that a land was sold by assessee to an entity below value adopted by concerned authority for levy of stamp duty, and therefore, there was under

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

3 &4: The AO has made the addition on account of Short Term Capital Gain by taking the deemed value of the consideration in terms of section 50C

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

3 &4: The AO has made the addition on account of Short Term Capital Gain by taking the deemed value of the consideration in terms of section 50C

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

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

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

3,12,44,640/- in the assessment order. 7. The appellant assesse being aggrieved with the Assessment Order, went in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who has granted relief to the assesse by observing as under: “12. I have considered the facts of the case, the basis of addition made by the Assessing Officer, the arguments

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

3,12,44,640/- in the assessment order. 7. The appellant assesse being aggrieved with the Assessment Order, went in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who has granted relief to the assesse by observing as under: “12. I have considered the facts of the case, the basis of addition made by the Assessing Officer, the arguments

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

3,12,44,640/- in the assessment order. 7. The appellant assesse being aggrieved with the Assessment Order, went in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who has granted relief to the assesse by observing as under: “12. I have considered the facts of the case, the basis of addition made by the Assessing Officer, the arguments

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

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

3) r.w.s 147 of the Act, dated 16.11.2011 wherein the income of the assessee under the head “long term capital gain” (LTCG) was determined after applying the provisions of section 50C

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