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

Long-Term Capital Gain. The action of AO in making additions u/s 69A of the Act and disallowing the claim

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

Long-Term Capital Gains in the A.Y. 2006-07. " (Emphasis supplied) 4.1 The ld. AR placed that reopening u/s 148 for A.Y. 2006-07 was initiated on basis of the opinion found by the ld. CIT(A) in his appeal order for A.Y. 2005-06 on that opinion the assessment was reopened u/s 148 r.w.s. 150 (iii) and the notice

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

termed as business income since there was specific head for assessing the rental income and had, therefore, held that the rental income was to be assessed under the head of ‘house property’ as provided in the Act. The Ld.Counsel for the assessee pointed out that the facts in the present case were totally different, with the assessee having rented

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

long term 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 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

long term 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

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

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

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

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

long term capital gain and had also added the amount of Rs.9,47,663/- towards income earned by the assessee on the FDR deposited with the financial institution namely Jalandhar Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., Mansurpur. 3.0 Feeling aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), and the Ld,.CIT(A) had granted the relief

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

Long Term 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

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

long-term, could be allowed, other than where incurred in connection with the transfer, is that incurred on the acquisition or improvement of the capital asset transferred, i.e., capital costs. Whether a particular cost qualifies to be a cost of acquisition, as the interest cost is claimed to be in the instant case, or cost of improvement, is primarily

SMT. JANAK RANI DHINGRA,HARYANA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,, MOGA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. N. S. Saini & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi. T. A. No. 294/(Asr)/2016 Assessment Year: 2006-07

Long Term Capital Gains arising out of sale of residential house. The AO was "" """"""""""""""""""""""" """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" of the view that deduction u/s 54 and Sec. 54F of the Act are allowable to the Assessee only on construction or purchase of new residential house, therefore, he made additon of Rs. 4,40,000/- disallowing

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

disallowance of legal expenses. 6. First, we take up the Issue with regard to treatment of purchase and sale of shares as adventure in the nature of trade i.e.Business income or income from capital gains. The Hon’ble High Court set aside the matter by observing vide para 4 and 5 of its judgement as under: Amrit Lal Batra

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

disallowance of legal expenses. 6. First, we take up the Issue with regard to treatment of purchase and sale of shares as adventure in the nature of trade i.e.Business income or income from capital gains. The Hon’ble High Court set aside the matter by observing vide para 4 and 5 of its judgement as under: Amrit Lal Batra

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

SHRI AMRITPAL SINGH (PROP),JALANDHAR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- 1, JALANDHAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee ITA No

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

long term capital gain and d education claimed u/s 54D along with documents. Please explain as to why the deduction claimed u/s 54D may not be disallowed