INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2 (1), JAMMU vs. SHRI MOHD ASLAM BAGGAR, JAMMU

In the result, the appeal of the department is dismissed

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

3) of the Income tax Act, 1961 holding that the capital gain tax is chargeable on the compulsory acquisition of the urban land by resorting to the provisions of section 45(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is unsustainable in view of the provisions of sub-section (37) of section 10 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and same

SH. VIJAY KUMAR,PROP. ,MOGA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3, MOGA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

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

3 Vijay Kumar v. ITO discrepancy pointed out, rather on the on the other side the assessee objected to the issue of notice under section148. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer has recalculated the long term capital gain at Rs. 5,51,827 instead of (-) Rs.57,518/- shown by the assessee in the computation of income. It is observed from the penalty

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

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

section 45(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 because it is a deeming provision which creates fiction only to fix the year of transfer and consideration on transfer but there is no fiction regarding accrual of profits and gains on transfer of capital asset. 7

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

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

section 45(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 because it is a deeming provision which creates fiction only to fix the year of transfer and consideration on transfer but there is no fiction regarding accrual of profits and gains on transfer of capital asset. 7

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, TARN TARAN vs. ESTATE OF LATE SH. JAGIR SINGH BHULLAR, TARN TARAN

In the result, the appeals of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Choudhry, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.306/Asr/2014 & 591/Asr/2015 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Estate Of Sh. Jagir Singh Bhullar Vs. Income Tax Officer, Through S. Jasbir—Singh Ward-1(3), Bhullar, Tarn Taran, E-250 Ranjit Avenue, Amritsar, Punjab. Punjab.

3. The possession delivered, if at all, was as a license for the development of the property and not in the capacity of a transferee. 4. Further Section 53A of 1882 Act, by incorporation, stood embodied in section 2(47)(v) of the Act and all the essential ingredients of Section 53A of 1882 Act were required to be fulfilled

ESTATE OF SH. JAGIR SINGH BHULLAR,AMRITSAR. vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, TARN TARAN

In the result, the appeals of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Choudhry, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.306/Asr/2014 & 591/Asr/2015 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Estate Of Sh. Jagir Singh Bhullar Vs. Income Tax Officer, Through S. Jasbir—Singh Ward-1(3), Bhullar, Tarn Taran, E-250 Ranjit Avenue, Amritsar, Punjab. Punjab.

3. The possession delivered, if at all, was as a license for the development of the property and not in the capacity of a transferee. 4. Further Section 53A of 1882 Act, by incorporation, stood embodied in section 2(47)(v) of the Act and all the essential ingredients of Section 53A of 1882 Act were required to be fulfilled

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

3. return for the year 2014-15 on 31.03.2015 , declaring a total income of Rs.80,270/-, ( which included income from house property at Rs.75,600/-, short term capital loss at (Rs.30,618/-), income from bank interest at Rs.17,667/- and LTCG (long term capital gains) amounting to Rs.2,02, 30,196/- which has been claimed as exempt

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

3. return for the year 2014-15 on 31.03.2015 , declaring a total income of Rs.80,270/-, ( which included income from house property at Rs.75,600/-, short term capital loss at (Rs.30,618/-), income from bank interest at Rs.17,667/- and LTCG (long term capital gains) amounting to Rs.2,02, 30,196/- which has been claimed as exempt

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

3)/263 on following issues: " Issue of claim of exemption of Rs. 5,12,75,000 as exempt capital gain on sale of agriculture land " Issue of nature of land on which capital gain has been claim exempt and evidence of agricultural activity carried on such land " Issue of source of purchase of land under consideration way back

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

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

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, AMRITSAR. vs. SH. SHIV RAJ SINGH BAWA, AMRITSAR.

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is allowed and the assessee’s CO, dismissed

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 407/Asr/2016 Assessment Year: 2012-13

capital by the company, as contended by it. The amounts received by way of salami were the trading receipts of the business of acquiring leases and granting sub-leases, and the profit therefrom liable to tax as business income. (AY 2012-13) ITO v. Shiv Raj Singh Bawa 3.2 The next issue confronting us is if the disallowance

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. 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

3) of the Act, the AO assessed the long term capital gain at Rs.1,75,36,744/-. By virtue of order dated 07.03.2013, the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the assessee’s appeal against the aforesaid assessment. The Tribunal vide order dated 11.09.2013, passed in ITA No.406(Asr)/2013, dismissed the assessee’s appeal against the CIT(A)’s order. 7

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

3. Compensation was paid on agriculture rate. 4. Total compensation Rs 7,57,91,413 was paid. 5. No copy of compensation issued to Sucha Singh. So, on 18/11/2016 she already knew that Land acquired was agriculture andcompensation was paid on agriculture rate but A.O. totally ignored this relevant evidence justifying claim of exemption

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

MAX FINANCIAL SERVICE LIMITED ,NAWANSHAHR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is therefore partly allowed

3) of the Act was erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of revenue. 4. That the assumption of jurisdiction under section 263 is also bad in law since the PCIT has failed to demonstrate as to how any of the conditions prescribed in Explanation 2 to section action 263 of the Act stood satisfied on the facts of the present

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

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

3)/144C of the Act dated 02.02.2012 at an assessed income of Rs.4,20,04,589/-. 7. The assesse being aggrieved with the Assessment Order, went in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who has granted major relief to the assessee by observing as under: “8.2 I have considered the observations of the Assessing Officer as made

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

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

3)/144C of the Act dated 02.02.2012 at an assessed income of Rs.4,20,04,589/-. 7. The assesse being aggrieved with the Assessment Order, went in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who has granted major relief to the assessee by observing as under: “8.2 I have considered the observations of the Assessing Officer as made

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

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

3)/144C of the Act dated 02.02.2012 at an assessed income of Rs.4,20,04,589/-. 7. The assesse being aggrieved with the Assessment Order, went in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who has granted major relief to the assessee by observing as under: “8.2 I have considered the observations of the Assessing Officer as made