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

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

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

7 Marlas land for Rs. 2,99,10,000/- for the financial year 2008-09 and out of which land measuring 29 Kanal 6 Marlas was sold for Rs. 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

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

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

SHRI NITIN AIMA,SHRINAGAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3, SRINAGAR

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

7) of Section 10AA, where the profits derived from export of the\nundertaking has to be worked out in proportion with export turnover which bears\nto the total turnover of the undertaking, and since it is already decided by the\nHon'ble Apex court , that duty drawback are simply incentives flowing from\nvarious schemes of the Government or from

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

7 Assessment Year: 2006-07 discussed above and the Capital Gain has been assessed in their respective hands. The details of the properties sold were given in the assessment order. 2. As for as sale of Plant and Machinery, the profit on account of sale of movable assets is to be assessed in the hands of firm M/s Makker Cotton

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

capital gain arising out of transfer of land, being used for agricultural purposes in the two years immediately preceding the date on which the transfer took place, is utilised for purchase of any other land for being used for agricultural purposes then the Assessee is entitled to benefit of deduction of the amount so invested. The Assessing Officer’s interpretation

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

Section 24 of the IT Act, 1961 under the head 'income from house property'. However, this is not an allowable deduction under the head 'capital gains’ as claimed by the assessee under the garb of Expenditure on Transfer'. Therefore, 5 Vishal Batrav. Dy. CIT in view of the clear cut provision providing for deduction of the Interest amount

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

7. That by any reckoning, the assessment order passed in pursuance to the purported directions of the Id.CIT(A) in his earlier appellate order for AY 2005-06, being contrary to law and facts of the case, was not sustainable.” 3. Brief facts as culled out from the records are that the assessee earned a capital gain amount to Rs.1

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

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

7. The learned Counsel for the assessee has submitted thatit is not a case where in the Hon’ble Bench earlier has not considered the various Amrit Lal Batra v. Addl./Dy.CIT tests as laid down by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs Vinay Mittal. The Hon’ble High Court has set aside

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

7. The learned Counsel for the assessee has submitted thatit is not a case where in the Hon’ble Bench earlier has not considered the various Amrit Lal Batra v. Addl./Dy.CIT tests as laid down by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs Vinay Mittal. The Hon’ble High Court has set aside

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

7. Now, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal with the claim that the interest portion received on compensation is to be treated as income from capital gains and not income from other sources, and he relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of Sh. Anvar Ali Poolakkodan v. ITO, Ward

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

7 Assessment Year: 2018-19 5.2. In both the orders the nature of the calculation of tax and nature of addition is different. The assessing authority has considered the amount Rs. 10 lakh as 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

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

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 of the AR on the issue during assessment

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

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 of the AR on the issue during assessment

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

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 of the AR on the issue during assessment