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

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

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

6 Vishal Batrav. Dy. CIT Gains”.The appellant submitted before the CIT(A) that the interest paid on the residential house sold has been capitalized and included in the cost of asset and accordingly, calculated the Short Term Capital Gain on which tax has been paid. It is however noted by the CIT(A) that no documents have been filed

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

6 Assessment Year: 2006-07 to take action against the assessee to tax the Long-Term Capital Gains in the A.Y. 2006-07. " (Emphasis supplied) 4.1 The ld. AR placed that reopening u/s 148 for A.Y. 2006-07 was initiated on basis of the opinion found by the ld. CIT(A) in his appeal order

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

6) of the Income Tax Act 1961, [in brevity ‘the Act’] for A.Y. I.T.A. No.504/Asr/2014 2 Assessment Year: 2006-07 2006-07. The impugned order was emanated from the order of the ld. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Muktsar(in brevity the AO) order passed u/s 144 of the Act. 2. The revenue has taken the following grounds

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

section 54B holding that the same is not allowable against the sale of a capital asset other than agricultural land. The Assessing Officer passed an order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 dated 28.12.2019 assessing the Long Term 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

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

SHRI AMRIT LAL BATRA,SRINAGAR vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX-3, SRINAGAR

Appeals of the appellant are disposed off in the terms indicated as above

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

6. First, we take up the Issue with regard to treatment of purchase and sale of shares as adventure in the nature of trade i.e.Business income or income from capital gains. The Hon’ble High Court set aside the matter by observing vide para 4 and 5 of its judgement as under: Amrit Lal Batra v. Addl./Dy.CIT

SH. AMRIT LAL BATRA, PROP.,SRINAGAR vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, JAMMU

Appeals of the appellant are disposed off in the terms indicated as above

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

6. First, we take up the Issue with regard to treatment of purchase and sale of shares as adventure in the nature of trade i.e.Business income or income from capital gains. The Hon’ble High Court set aside the matter by observing vide para 4 and 5 of its judgement as under: Amrit Lal Batra v. Addl./Dy.CIT

HARBANS SINGH,P.O. KHERA DONA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BSNL EXCHANGE COLONY

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed being devoid of merits

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

6. However, the Ld. first appellate authority after considering the amount of Rs.32.46 lakhs received by the assessee as interest on compensation / or enhanced compensation, has considered the same to be taxable under the head “income from other sources” u/s 56(2)(viii) and has judiciously allowed the deduction of a sum equal to fifty percentage of such income , allowable

M/S. WORLDWIDE FOURTUNE HOMES ,KATHUA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAMMU

In the result, appeal of the assessee ITA No

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

capital gain but not cost of acquisition during time of assessment proceeding in the reason lack of documents. The ld. CIT(A) had converted the income assessed U/s 45 to section 69A. The appellate authority can change the view of assessing authority. The ld. CIT (A) can decide the appeal by passing a written order, after hearing the appellant

SH. SUNIL GUPTA,JAMMU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMMU

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees bearing ITA Nos

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

section 6 of Hindu Succession Act. Similarly he could not be legal heir in terms of general power of attorney granted to him by the assessee during her life time because this GPA was only in connection with land acquisition proceedings and compensation thereunder. It conferred no power on him to attend to any other matter relating to her including

SMT. ANURADHA MAHAJAN,,JAMMU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMMU

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees bearing ITA Nos

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

section 6 of Hindu Succession Act. Similarly he could not be legal heir in terms of general power of attorney granted to him by the assessee during her life time because this GPA was only in connection with land acquisition proceedings and compensation thereunder. It conferred no power on him to attend to any other matter relating to her including

SMT. DHANWANTI DEVI (DECEASED),JAMMU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMMU

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees bearing ITA Nos

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

section 6 of Hindu Succession Act. Similarly he could not be legal heir in terms of general power of attorney granted to him by the assessee during her life time because this GPA was only in connection with land acquisition proceedings and compensation thereunder. It conferred no power on him to attend to any other matter relating to her including

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

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee is allowed

6 to 9]\nE) [2022] 145 taxmann.com 590 (Calcutta) HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA Principal\nCommissioner of Income-tax v.ReetaLakhmani*\nSection 10(38), read with section 263, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Capital gains

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, AMRITSAR. vs. SHRI BALJINDERR SINGH CHAHAL, AMRITSAR.

In the result, the appeal of revenue ITA No

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No.434/Asr/2016 Assessment Year: 2009-10

6 Assessment Year: 2009-10 agreement/ikrarnama. The assessee claimed that both documents were not signed by them. Finally, the assessment was completed, and addition was made Rs.10,83,75,750/- on account of investment made by the assessee for purchase of land and the capital gain calculated by the revenue related to transaction amounting to Rs.85,90,000/-. The revenue

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, AMRITSAR. vs. SH. SURJIT SINGH, AMRITSAR.

In the result, the appeal of revenue ITA No

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No.434/Asr/2016 Assessment Year: 2009-10

6 Assessment Year: 2009-10 agreement/ikrarnama. The assessee claimed that both documents were not signed by them. Finally, the assessment was completed, and addition was made Rs.10,83,75,750/- on account of investment made by the assessee for purchase of land and the capital gain calculated by the revenue related to transaction amounting to Rs.85,90,000/-. The revenue