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.

section 53A of Transfer of Property Act. 8. That Ld AO has misapplied the facts and law in treating future and uncertain and unquantifiable benefits as so called consideration for alleged transfer and accordingly he has valued non existent property benefits for levy of capital gains. 9. That, the impugned agreement with the builders/ developers had been canceled

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

75,36,744/- was not declared. Since, in the present case the assessment of long term capital gain has been upheld by the jurisdictional bench of the Hon’ble ITAT and the appellant filed belated revised return of income declaring long term capital gain, the action of the AO in 5 Sh. Raghunath Sahai Puri v. D.C.I.T. imposing penalty

SH. SARWAN SINGH PHILLAUR,JALANDHAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Sh. N. S. Saini & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi. T. A. No. 562/(Asr)/2015 Assessment Year: 2007-08

section 54 of the Act, the entire capital gain arising from the assets from the transfer of land had escaped assessment. Therefore, he issued notice u/s 148 of the Act and made addition of the capital gains of Rs. 1,83,75

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, JALANDHAR vs. SH. SARWAN SINGH PHILLAUR, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Sh. N. S. Saini & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi. T. A. No. 562/(Asr)/2015 Assessment Year: 2007-08

section 54 of the Act, the entire capital gain arising from the assets from the transfer of land had escaped assessment. Therefore, he issued notice u/s 148 of the Act and made addition of the capital gains of Rs. 1,83,75

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

75,79,854/- along with interest in the Bank. 2.1 The assessee's case was selected for scrutiny under 'CASS', after that notice u/s 143(2) was issued on 19.02.2016, which was duly served on the assessee 24.09.2016. A.O. asked the assessee to explain the source of deposit of Rs.8,58,81,037/- made in the previous year. The assessee

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

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

capital receipt or revenue receipt and would thus, be\ntaxable. However, thereafter, and in order to put an end to the\ndispute, the legislature by way of inserting clauses 28 (iiia), (iiib),\n(iiic), (iiid) and (iiie) has made the said incentives taxable under\nthe head of \"profits and gains of business and profession.\n7.2 Section 80-IB provides

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

section 41 (2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. As per reasons recorded, the plant and machinery of the assessee was sold at Rs. 20,00,000/- whereas the cost as per records was Rs. 1,60,000/. Hence, the assessment was made by the then AO at Rs. 18,40,000/- being Long Term Capital Gain arised on account

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.BOOTA SINGH S/O. SH. NACHATER SINGH, BATHINDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(1), BATHINDA

In the result all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. Laliet Kumar & Dr. M. L. Meena

section 148 on the issue of ‘mechanical application of mind’ by the Ld. PCIT and also there was no ‘Reason to Believe’ that the income of assessee has escaped assessment as per concise ‘grounds of appeal,’ the following submissions may, please, be considered: - a). In all the three cases, since the assessments were sought to be reopened beyond four years

SHRI NACHHATER SINGH S/O SHRI GURBAKSH SINGH,BATHINDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICEER , BATHINDA

In the result all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. Laliet Kumar & Dr. M. L. Meena

section 148 on the issue of ‘mechanical application of mind’ by the Ld. PCIT and also there was no ‘Reason to Believe’ that the income of assessee has escaped assessment as per concise ‘grounds of appeal,’ the following submissions may, please, be considered: - a). In all the three cases, since the assessments were sought to be reopened beyond four years

SHRI BABBU SINGH S/O SHRI NACHHATER SINGH,BATHINDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICEER WARD-2(1), BATHINDA

In the result all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. Laliet Kumar & Dr. M. L. Meena

section 148 on the issue of ‘mechanical application of mind’ by the Ld. PCIT and also there was no ‘Reason to Believe’ that the income of assessee has escaped assessment as per concise ‘grounds of appeal,’ the following submissions may, please, be considered: - a). In all the three cases, since the assessments were sought to be reopened beyond four years

SHRIMATI. SAVITRI DEVI,BATHINDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(1), BATHINDA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

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

section 55(2)(b) and 55A of Income Tax Act, respectively before calculating the Capital Gain and order of A.O require to be set-a-side.” 3. Brief fact of the case is that the assessee’s case was reopened u/s 147 on basis of information related to sale of land amount to Rs.40,89,010/-. The assessment was completed

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

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

75 of the Customs Act, 1962 and, hence, incentive profits are not profits derived from the eligible business under Section 80-1B. It is observed that they belong to the category of ancillary profits of such undertakings. 7.4 Similar view was also expressed with respect to the Duty Drawback. Thereafter, in paragraph 43 of the above decision

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

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

75 of the Customs Act, 1962 and, hence, incentive profits are not profits derived from the eligible business under Section 80-1B. It is observed that they belong to the category of ancillary profits of such undertakings. 7.4 Similar view was also expressed with respect to the Duty Drawback. Thereafter, in paragraph 43 of the above decision

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

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

75 of the Customs Act, 1962 and, hence, incentive profits are not profits derived from the eligible business under Section 80-1B. It is observed that they belong to the category of ancillary profits of such undertakings. 7.4 Similar view was also expressed with respect to the Duty Drawback. Thereafter, in paragraph 43 of the above decision

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

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

75 of the Customs Act, 1962 and, hence, incentive profits are not profits derived from the eligible business under Section 80-1B. It is observed that they belong to the category of ancillary profits of such undertakings. 7.4 Similar view was also expressed with respect to the Duty Drawback. Thereafter, in paragraph 43 of the above decision

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

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

75 of the Customs Act, 1962 and, hence, incentive profits are not profits derived from the eligible business under Section 80-1B. It is observed that they belong to the category of ancillary profits of such undertakings. 7.4 Similar view was also expressed with respect to the Duty Drawback. Thereafter, in paragraph 43 of the above decision

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

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

75 of the Customs Act, 1962 and, hence, incentive profits are not profits derived from the eligible business under Section 80-1B. It is observed that they belong to the category of ancillary profits of such undertakings. 7.4 Similar view was also expressed with respect to the Duty Drawback. Thereafter, in paragraph 43 of the above decision