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

81,016/- 2. That assessee purchased shares of M/s Dhanleela Investments & Trading Co., these shares in earlier years. 3. That during the year assessee had short term capital loss. That assessee incurred transaction and declared the same in his return of income which is also reproduced below: Income From Short Term Capital Gain Particulars: - shares Sale Proceeds 619737626 Less: Cost

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

81), wherein it has clarified by the ‘Central Govt.’ about the agricultural land, situated on the outskirt of Mohali and that no ‘capital gain’ is chargeable, if the agricultural land is located within ‘one kilometer on the either side of Mohali-Kharar Road, upto the distance of 6 kilometers from ‘Municipal limits’ on that Road’ and, accordingly, it was pleaded

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

capital gain arising out of the transaction, by virtue of which he has transferred his share in the property of M/s. Defence Services Co-op. House Building Society Ltd., Mohali to M/s. Hash Builders Pvt. Ltd., Chandigarh and M/s. Tata Housing Development Company Ltd., Mumbai on 27.04.2007 for a total consideration of Rs.1,81,25,000/- including the value

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

81,037/- made in the previous year. The assessee was also asked to explain why the amount Rs.7,57,91,413/- received as compensation be not taxed according to law. In response to the notice, the assessee submitted a reply to A.O. However, the Assessing Officer was not convinced with the answer given by the assessee . Therefore with a view

NEERAJ MITTAL,KATHUA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , KATHUA

In the result, these appeals of the assessees are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No. 503/Asr/2017 Assessment Year: 2011-12

Capital Gains. Neeraj Mittal v. ITO & Ors 5. The worthy CIT (Appeals) erred in confirming the order on account of claim of deduction u/s 54F as claimed by the Assessee during the Assessment proceedings as well as Appellate proceedings. 6. The Assessee reserves the right to add, amend or withdraw any grounds of appeal before the hearing

SH. SARJU MITTAL,KATHUA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, KATHUA

In the result, these appeals of the assessees are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No. 503/Asr/2017 Assessment Year: 2011-12

Capital Gains. Neeraj Mittal v. ITO & Ors 5. The worthy CIT (Appeals) erred in confirming the order on account of claim of deduction u/s 54F as claimed by the Assessee during the Assessment proceedings as well as Appellate proceedings. 6. The Assessee reserves the right to add, amend or withdraw any grounds of appeal before the hearing

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

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 BARJINDERPAL SINGH BHULLAR,MOHALI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- 1 (3), BATHINDA

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Sh. Ravish Sood & Dr. M. L. Meena

81,25,000/-. The A.O while culminating the assessment, observed, that involving identical facts, an addition that was made in the case of Sh. Bikramjit Singh Gill C/o Gill Sons & Associates, 5 Brijinder Pal Singh Bhullar Vs. ITO, Ward 1(3), Bathinda ITA Nos. 671 & 672/Asr/2019 – A.Y 2008-09 Bathinda had been upheld by the Tribunal vide its order passed

SHRI BRIJINDERPAL SINGH BHULLAR,MOHALI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- 1 (3), BATHINDA

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Sh. Ravish Sood & Dr. M. L. Meena

81,25,000/-. The A.O while culminating the assessment, observed, that involving identical facts, an addition that was made in the case of Sh. Bikramjit Singh Gill C/o Gill Sons & Associates, 5 Brijinder Pal Singh Bhullar Vs. ITO, Ward 1(3), Bathinda ITA Nos. 671 & 672/Asr/2019 – A.Y 2008-09 Bathinda had been upheld by the Tribunal vide its order passed

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

81,20,180/- made by the assessing officer u/s 69 /69B of the IT Act,1961 by holding that the Documents i.e. MOU dated 22.01.2008 and supplement MOU dated 18.03.2008 which were found and seized during the time of search, though not signed by either of the parties, in this case; could not be taken as evidence of the payment

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

81,20,180/- made by the assessing officer u/s 69 /69B of the IT Act,1961 by holding that the Documents i.e. MOU dated 22.01.2008 and supplement MOU dated 18.03.2008 which were found and seized during the time of search, though not signed by either of the parties, in this case; could not be taken as evidence of the payment

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

81,20,180/- made by the assessing officer u/s 69 /69B of the IT Act,1961 by holding that the Documents i.e. MOU dated 22.01.2008 and supplement MOU dated 18.03.2008 which were found and seized during the time of search, though not signed by either of the parties, in this case; could not be taken as evidence of the payment

M/S. JAMMU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,,JAMMU ( J&K) vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMMU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of the department is dismissed

Bench: Sh. N. S. Saini & Sh. N. K. Choudhryita No. 498/Asr./2013 : Asstt. Year : 2005-06 Jammu Development Authority, Vs Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vikas Bhawan, Rail Head Tax, Circle-I, Complex, Jammu, J & K Jammu (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadfj7335A Ita No. 494/Asr./2013 : Asstt. Year : 2005-06 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vs Jammu Development Authority, Tax, Circle-I, Vikas Bhawan, Rail Head Jammu Complex, Jammu, J & K (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcp1720E Assessee By : Shri. R. K. Gupta, Ca & Shri. Vasu Gupta, Ca Revenue By : Shri. M. P. Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing :21.02.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.03.2019 Order Per N. S. Saini: These Are The Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee & Revenue Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Dated 06.05.2013, Jammu.

81,801 pertained to GDA schemes. The AO however, considered only the income side and ignored the expenditure totally. 3A.2.3.5.As submitted earlier, the appellant had duly engaged experts for segregating the nazul and non- nazul accounts and the revised accounts for the year under appeal are submitted herewith as per Annexure ‘I’ comprising of the following accounts – a. General Development

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMMU vs. M/S. JAMMU DEVELPMENT AUTHORITY,, JAMMU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of the department is dismissed

Bench: Sh. N. S. Saini & Sh. N. K. Choudhryita No. 498/Asr./2013 : Asstt. Year : 2005-06 Jammu Development Authority, Vs Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vikas Bhawan, Rail Head Tax, Circle-I, Complex, Jammu, J & K Jammu (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadfj7335A Ita No. 494/Asr./2013 : Asstt. Year : 2005-06 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vs Jammu Development Authority, Tax, Circle-I, Vikas Bhawan, Rail Head Jammu Complex, Jammu, J & K (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcp1720E Assessee By : Shri. R. K. Gupta, Ca & Shri. Vasu Gupta, Ca Revenue By : Shri. M. P. Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing :21.02.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.03.2019 Order Per N. S. Saini: These Are The Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee & Revenue Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Dated 06.05.2013, Jammu.

81,801 pertained to GDA schemes. The AO however, considered only the income side and ignored the expenditure totally. 3A.2.3.5.As submitted earlier, the appellant had duly engaged experts for segregating the nazul and non- nazul accounts and the revised accounts for the year under appeal are submitted herewith as per Annexure ‘I’ comprising of the following accounts – a. General Development

SHRI RAMESH KUMAR ,BATHINDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(3), BATHINDA

Bench: Sh. Ravish Sood & Dr. M. L. Meena

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. 10. That the Id.CIT(A) has erred in law, as well as ,on facts by holding the land in question as individual land by ignoring land revenue record and further ignored that neither such

SHRI ONKAR SINGH ,HOSHIARPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3, HOSHIARPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee ITA No

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

capital gains tax. The appellant never objected to the revenue authorities about escapement of stamp duty on sale of land by him. The purchaser has not confirmed the excess price alleged by received in cash by the appellant. During appeal proceedings, no documents were annexed in support of the written submission by the appellant so as to support its contentions

SHRI ONKAR SINGH,HOSHIARPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3, HOSHIARPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee ITA No

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

capital gains tax. The appellant never objected to the revenue authorities about escapement of stamp duty on sale of land by him. The purchaser has not confirmed the excess price alleged by received in cash by the appellant. During appeal proceedings, no documents were annexed in support of the written submission by the appellant so as to support its contentions