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. The action of AO in making additions u/s 69A of the Act and disallowing the claim of LTCG

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. The action of AO in making additions u/s 69A of the Act and disallowing the claim of LTCG

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

Capital Gain”. 4. That the above disallowance made in the case of the Appellant is against the facts and circumstances

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

capital gain, if any was assessable in AY 2006-07, which claim had been accepted by his predecessor to delete the addition made in AY 2005-06, now the contentions raised by assessee were totally misleading and contrary to facts. 4. The assessee had relied upon a plethora of under noted cases, wherein the findings/directions were elaborately explained

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

capital gains and also on the issue of disallowance of legal expenses. 6. First, we take up the Issue with

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

capital gains and also on the issue of disallowance of legal expenses. 6. First, we take up the Issue with

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

gain tax. So, there was nothing illegal in mentioning eligibility of both deductions under income tax act. 18) It is totally wrong on part of A.O. to observe that by claiming deduction u/s 54 (b) f exemption u/s 10(37) becomes redundant. Both deductions act in separate field and require independent specific conditions to be satisfied for claiming them

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

gains of business” as against “income from house property” and consequential claim of depredation under section 32 of the Act, being supported by various decisions of the High Courts could not have been termed as erroneous. 9. Without prejudice to the above, the PCIT failed to appreciate that business expenditure as claimed by the Appellant for the purposes of carrying

SMT. AMITA NARANG,DELHI vs. THE DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMMU

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A. No. 385/Asr/2016 Assessment Year: 2007-08

gain on its’ transfer. Guarantee commission paid to a bank for acquiring a capital asset was accordingly held as a part of it’s cost of acquisition in CIT v. Fort Gloster Industries Ltd. [1971] 79 ITR 48 (Cal). Any cost 4 Amita Narang v. Dy. CIT incurred for holding a capital asset, i.e., after its’ acquisition

M/S RAMAN KUMAR AGGARWAL,GURDASPUR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER .OF. INCOME. TAX , AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

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

disallowance of long-term capital gain u/s 10(38) claimed by the assessee. All the cases are taken together, heard

SH.GAURAV AGGARWAL,GURDAS PUR vs. DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

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

disallowance of long-term capital gain u/s 10(38) claimed by the assessee. All the cases are taken together, heard

SMT. DEEPTI AGGARWAL,GURDAS PUR vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

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

disallowance of long-term capital gain u/s 10(38) claimed by the assessee. All the cases are taken together, heard

SH. RAMAN KUMAR AGGARWAL,GURDAS PUR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

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

disallowance of long-term capital gain u/s 10(38) claimed by the assessee. All the cases are taken together, heard

SHRI RAKESH SABHARWAL,JALANDHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JALANDHAR

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No. 682/Asr/2019 Assessment Year: 2013-14

capital gain on account of sale of property on the basis of rough paper, without considering the submissions of the assessee. 4. 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 disallowing

SHRI SUSHEEL SABHARWAL,JALANDHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JALANDHAR

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No. 682/Asr/2019 Assessment Year: 2013-14

capital gain on account of sale of property on the basis of rough paper, without considering the submissions of the assessee. 4. 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 disallowing

SHRI KANAV KHANNA,,AMRITSAR. vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, AMRITSAR.

In the result, the ground no- G of appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

Capital Gain (LTCG) during the filing his return. During the assessment proceedings the ld. AO made verification and called the revenue record. Sh. Jagjit Singh Patwari of Verka Village was called along with “Khasra Garduari” (generally done twice a year, Winter/Rabi 1st March to 31st March Rainly/Haari 1st October to 31st October). The Patwari attended the office

SH. SURAJ PRAKASH,AMRTITSAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 5(5),, AMRITSAR

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A. No. 638/Asr/2017 Assessment Year: 2014-15

capital gains on the entire property, as against one-half share therein, in the hands of the assessee. Needless to add, the assessee shall be allowed credit for the full amount of the tax deducted at source from the consideration paid to him. I decide accordingly. 6. The next issue is with regard to the disallowance

SHRI AMAR NATH CHOUDHARY,JAMMU vs. DEPUTY CMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAMMU

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

disallowance by AO in respect of the commercial open space on presumption and assumptions on identical facts in all the three years and hence, these appeals are adjudicated together for brevity. 7. Facts are discussed from ITA No. 34/Asr/2022 in respect of the Assessment Year 2015016 as a lead case. The case was selected for LIMITED SCRUTINY to examine

SHRI AMAR NATH CHOUDHARY,JAMMU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAMMU

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

disallowance by AO in respect of the commercial open space on presumption and assumptions on identical facts in all the three years and hence, these appeals are adjudicated together for brevity. 7. Facts are discussed from ITA No. 34/Asr/2022 in respect of the Assessment Year 2015016 as a lead case. The case was selected for LIMITED SCRUTINY to examine

SHRI AMAR NATH CHOUDHARY,JAMMU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRA L CIRCLE, JAMMU

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

disallowance by AO in respect of the commercial open space on presumption and assumptions on identical facts in all the three years and hence, these appeals are adjudicated together for brevity. 7. Facts are discussed from ITA No. 34/Asr/2022 in respect of the Assessment Year 2015016 as a lead case. The case was selected for LIMITED SCRUTINY to examine