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

1,53,00,000 made by the Assessing Officer on account of Long-Term Capital Gain earned by the assessee in the year under consideration and the addition made is accordingly directed to be deleted. In the result, ground of appeal no. 6 taken by the assessee firm is allowed. 10.6 I would like to make it clear that

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

6) to verify claim of exemption of capital gain by assessee A.O. asked Tehsildar Goraya to furnish. 1. Whether acquired Land of Sucha Singh in Municipal limit if not how far away. 2. Furnish KhasraGirdawari of acquired Land for the year 2008-2009 to 2012-2013 (Copy of letter enclosed as per annexure-4). 9. In response to summons

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

iii) in case of Swati Bajaj survey was conducted on the broking entities and the brokers admitted that accommodation entries were provided but in the present case the assessee has purchased shares directly from the company and has sold shares through “ Max Growth Capital Private Limited ”, ( registered broker ) , who has never been enquired at any stage nor any enquiry conducted

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

iii) in case of Swati Bajaj survey was conducted on the broking entities and the brokers admitted that accommodation entries were provided but in the present case the assessee has purchased shares directly from the company and has sold shares through “ Max Growth Capital Private Limited ”, ( registered broker ) , who has never been enquired at any stage nor any enquiry conducted

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR vs. M/S BROADWAY OVERSEAS LTD., JALANDHAR

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

III”, in 28 I.T.A. Nos. 477 & CO 32/Asr/2015 & Ors Asstt. CIT v. Broadways Overseas Ltd. & Ors Civil Appeal No. 4822 of 2022 [@SLP (C) No.17539 of 2016] on the provisions of section 80IB, affirming their view earlier taken in the case of Liberty India 317 ITR 218 (SC): 225 CTR (SC) 233 on the claim of deduction u/s 80IB

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR vs. M/S BROADWAYS OVERSEAS LTD, JALANDHAR

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

III”, in 28 I.T.A. Nos. 477 & CO 32/Asr/2015 & Ors Asstt. CIT v. Broadways Overseas Ltd. & Ors Civil Appeal No. 4822 of 2022 [@SLP (C) No.17539 of 2016] on the provisions of section 80IB, affirming their view earlier taken in the case of Liberty India 317 ITR 218 (SC): 225 CTR (SC) 233 on the claim of deduction u/s 80IB

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR vs. M/S BROADWAY OVERSEAS LTD., JALANDHAR

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

III”, in 28 I.T.A. Nos. 477 & CO 32/Asr/2015 & Ors Asstt. CIT v. Broadways Overseas Ltd. & Ors Civil Appeal No. 4822 of 2022 [@SLP (C) No.17539 of 2016] on the provisions of section 80IB, affirming their view earlier taken in the case of Liberty India 317 ITR 218 (SC): 225 CTR (SC) 233 on the claim of deduction u/s 80IB

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR vs. M/S BROADWAY OVERSEAS LTD., JALANDHAR

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

III”, in 28 I.T.A. Nos. 477 & CO 32/Asr/2015 & Ors Asstt. CIT v. Broadways Overseas Ltd. & Ors Civil Appeal No. 4822 of 2022 [@SLP (C) No.17539 of 2016] on the provisions of section 80IB, affirming their view earlier taken in the case of Liberty India 317 ITR 218 (SC): 225 CTR (SC) 233 on the claim of deduction u/s 80IB

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR vs. M/S BROADWAY OVERSEAS LTD., JALANDHAR

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

III”, in 28 I.T.A. Nos. 477 & CO 32/Asr/2015 & Ors Asstt. CIT v. Broadways Overseas Ltd. & Ors Civil Appeal No. 4822 of 2022 [@SLP (C) No.17539 of 2016] on the provisions of section 80IB, affirming their view earlier taken in the case of Liberty India 317 ITR 218 (SC): 225 CTR (SC) 233 on the claim of deduction u/s 80IB

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR vs. M/S BROADWAYS OVERSEAS LTD, JALANDHAR

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

III”, in 28 I.T.A. Nos. 477 & CO 32/Asr/2015 & Ors Asstt. CIT v. Broadways Overseas Ltd. & Ors Civil Appeal No. 4822 of 2022 [@SLP (C) No.17539 of 2016] on the provisions of section 80IB, affirming their view earlier taken in the case of Liberty India 317 ITR 218 (SC): 225 CTR (SC) 233 on the claim of deduction u/s 80IB

BRODAWAYS OVERSEAS LIMITED,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR

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

III”, in 28 I.T.A. Nos. 477 & CO 32/Asr/2015 & Ors Asstt. CIT v. Broadways Overseas Ltd. & Ors Civil Appeal No. 4822 of 2022 [@SLP (C) No.17539 of 2016] on the provisions of section 80IB, affirming their view earlier taken in the case of Liberty India 317 ITR 218 (SC): 225 CTR (SC) 233 on the claim of deduction u/s 80IB

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

1 kilometer on either side of Mohali Kakar upto distance of 6 kilometers from Municipal limit on that road falls within the definition of capital asset. (iii) The land in question is located near Chandigarh Airport. In the assessment order passed in compliance of order u/s 263 on 30.12.2016, these issues do not seem to have examined as to whether

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 53A of1882 Act; (iii) meaning to be assigned to the term “possession”? (iv) whether in the facts and circumstances, any taxable capital gains arises from the transaction entered by the assessee? After considering the relevant statutory provisions and the case law, the conclusions arrived at by this Court in the said appeals vide judgment dated 22.7.2015 read thus:- 6

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

1. The residential land measuring 120.51 Sq yards of the assessee was acquired under National Highway Act, 1956 vide notification dated 04.02.2014/award has been given on 07.11.2014 [para 5.3.1 of the order of the CIT(A) and para 6 on page 6 of order of the AO] and the assessee received the following compensation through bank on 19.05.2015. Compensation

SHRI TARLOCHAN SINGH,MANSA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(4), MANSA

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

1. The assessee contributed ancestral agriculture land along-with his brother as their share in the capital in the books of M/s G.S. Chahal & Associates at the time of constituting the partnership firm. 2. The A.O. invoked the provisions of section 45(3) of the IT Act, 1961 and assessed the long term capital gain amounting

SHRI NAROTAM SINGH,MANSA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -1(4), MANSA

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

1. The assessee contributed ancestral agriculture land along-with his brother as their share in the capital in the books of M/s G.S. Chahal & Associates at the time of constituting the partnership firm. 2. The A.O. invoked the provisions of section 45(3) of the IT Act, 1961 and assessed the long term capital gain amounting

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

iii) of the IT Act 1961. (v) The appellant craves leave to add or amend any ground of appeal before the appeal is finally heard or disposed off.” 4. Brief facts emerging from record are that the assessee is an agriculturist and is about 92 years old, and his source of income is only from agricultural activities carried

BHUPENDRA FLOUR MILLS PVT LTD,BATHINDA vs. ITO, WARD 1(1), BATHINDA, BATHINDA

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of out above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Shri Udayandasgupta, Jm आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.54/Asr/2025 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) M/S Bhupendra Flour Mills Pvt Ltd. Ito Ward - 1(1) बनाम/ Railway Road Central Revenue Building Bhatinda, Punjab – 151001 Civil Lines, Bhatinda Vs. Punjab - 151001 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaccb-6192-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) - Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Farhat Khan (Cit) – Ld. Dr (Virtual) सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05-02-2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 20.02.2026 : आदेश / O R D E R

capital gains. (iv) A conjoint reading of Section 2(24), Section 2(28A), Section 4, Section 10(37), Section 14, Section 45(5), Section 56(2)(viii), Section 145B(1) and Section 194LA of the Act makes it abundantly clear that any income which arises or is deemed to arise or accrue in India is chargeable