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

Short-Term Capital Loss are sold at low price. In the case of the assessee, it is further revealed from the assessment order that: a. The prices of the shares of M/s. Dhanleela Investment & Trading Co. Ltd. increased unrealistically without any corresponding movement in the normal share market. b. The shares were purchased by the assessee at very low price

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

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

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

short “PCIT”), dated 25.02.2020 relating to assessment year 2015-16, passed in exercise of his revisionary jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as Act). 2 A.Y.2015-16 2. Briefly stated, the Ld. Pr.CIT while perusing the assessment record of the assessee pertaining to the impugned year noticed that the Assessing Officer (AO) had framed

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

short-term or 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

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 together and disposed of together. For the sake of convenience ITA No. 34/Asr/2019 is taken as lead case. 3. The ld. Counsel for the assessee filed an adjournment petition for all 4 appeals. But after the discussion with the bench

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 together and disposed of together. For the sake of convenience ITA No. 34/Asr/2019 is taken as lead case. 3. The ld. Counsel for the assessee filed an adjournment petition for all 4 appeals. But after the discussion with the bench

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 together and disposed of together. For the sake of convenience ITA No. 34/Asr/2019 is taken as lead case. 3. The ld. Counsel for the assessee filed an adjournment petition for all 4 appeals. But after the discussion with the bench

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 together and disposed of together. For the sake of convenience ITA No. 34/Asr/2019 is taken as lead case. 3. The ld. Counsel for the assessee filed an adjournment petition for all 4 appeals. But after the discussion with the bench

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

short term capital gain every year and the same has been accepted by the department year after year. 13.4 The fifth test, would not apply in the present case of the appellant being an individual because, this applied in cases of partnership firms and companies, is whether the deed of partnership or the memorandum of association authorizes such an activity

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

short term capital gain every year and the same has been accepted by the department year after year. 13.4 The fifth test, would not apply in the present case of the appellant being an individual because, this applied in cases of partnership firms and companies, is whether the deed of partnership or the memorandum of association authorizes such an activity

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

short). 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed return of income on 10.2.2006 and claimed deduction of Rs. 4,40,000/ on purchase of residential plot against Long Term Capital Gains arising out of sale of residential house. The AO was "" """"""""""""""""""""""" """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" of the view that deduction

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

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

short delay is condoned and appeals are admitted on merits. 6. There is sole issue challenged by the appellant regarding confirmation of 10 % of the addition made by AO in respect of the sale of Flats and 10 % as against the 20% disallowance by AO in respect of the commercial open space on presumption and assumptions on identical facts

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

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

short delay is condoned and appeals are admitted on merits. 6. There is sole issue challenged by the appellant regarding confirmation of 10 % of the addition made by AO in respect of the sale of Flats and 10 % as against the 20% disallowance by AO in respect of the commercial open space on presumption and assumptions on identical facts

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

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

short delay is condoned and appeals are admitted on merits. 6. There is sole issue challenged by the appellant regarding confirmation of 10 % of the addition made by AO in respect of the sale of Flats and 10 % as against the 20% disallowance by AO in respect of the commercial open space on presumption and assumptions on identical facts

KAMAL KANT,,BATALA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, BATALA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed and order impugned herein passed by the Ld

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N.K.Choudhryita No.638(Asr)/2016 Assessment Year:2012-13

Short Term Capital gain by Rs.4,40,000/- by confirming the disallowance of claim of expenses incurred on improvement of property

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

short) dated 03.08.2017, dismissing the assessee’s appeal contesting his assessment u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' hereinafter) dated 16.12.2016 for Assessment Year (AY) 2014-15. 2. The appeal raises three issues, which we shall take up in seriatim. The first issue is with regard to the correct amount of capital gains chargeable

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

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 and added to your income. Please furnish your reply with evidence. Keeping in view the above facts, your case is fixed for hearing on 18.11.2016 and you are requested to attend my office with

THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER,, AMRITSAR. vs. SH. RAJIV MEHRA PROP., AMRITSAR.

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sh. N. S. Saini & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi. T. A. No. 452(Asr)/2014 Assessment Year: 2008-09

short). 3. The brief facts of the case are that the AO passed the order u/s 143(3) of the Act on 30.12.2010 and made the following additions:- a) Addition on account to Long Term Capital Gains Rs. 84,17,645/- 2 ITA No. 452/Asr/2014 – Shri Rajiv Mehra Prop. M/s H.D. Mehra Chemical Works, Amritsar b) Disallowance

SHRI GULBAHAR SINGH ,HOSHIARPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DASUYA, DASUYA

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

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A. No. 335/Asr/2018 Assessment Year: 2008-09

short) dated 29.3.2018, dismissing the assessee’s appeal contesting his assessment u/s. 143(3) r/w s .254 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' hereinafter) dated 08.11.2017 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2008-09. 2. The issue in the instant case is the correct valuation (as on 01.4.1981) of a plot of land, measuring 29.66 Marlas, the capital asset