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

house property at Rs.75,600/-, short term capital loss at (Rs.30,618/-), income from bank interest at Rs.17,667/- and LTCG (long term capital gains

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

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

termed as ‘Entire Consideration’ in the agreement. 4. As such, the assessee was required to explain as to why 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

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 from sale of property, and restricting cost of improvement based on rough paper without appreciating the facts of the case and submission of the assessee. Therefore, we decided to hear both the appeals together and disposed of by this common order for brevity. We have chosen to take I.T.A. No. 683/Asr/2019, Assessment Year

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 from sale of property, and restricting cost of improvement based on rough paper without appreciating the facts of the case and submission of the assessee. Therefore, we decided to hear both the appeals together and disposed of by this common order for brevity. We have chosen to take I.T.A. No. 683/Asr/2019, Assessment Year

SHRIMATI HARMOHINDER KAUR,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, OFFICER CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Sh. N.K.Choudhry & Dr. A.L.Sainiassessment Year: 2009-10

long term capital gain' taxable in the hands of the assessee at Rs.31,42,225/-. Therefore, under the facts and circumstances of the case, the addition of Rs. 28,50,001/- made by the AO is found sustainable and hence confirmed. Accordingly, these grounds of appeal are dismissed. 3. The assessee being aggrieved preferred the instant appeal. 4. Having heard

SH.DIDAR SINGH,PHAGWARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, PHAGWARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

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

Capital Gain and utilization of this huge cash. 10. Ld Ar had further submitted in the Ws that on the recent enquiry made by the assessee it has been found that Sulkhan Ram has made a palacious house at village Masani TehslPhillaour Distt. Jalandhar and also he is constructing a Mall at village Apra, Tehsil Phillaour . Out of the sale

SH. PARMINDER SINGH,KAPURTHALA vs. A.C.I.T, CENTRAL CIRCLE- I, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N.K.Choudhryita No.329(Asr)/2017 Assessment Year:2009-10

long term capital gain is taxable under the head” Business Income” as follows: Sale Consideration of Plot Rs.5,00,000/- Less: Cost of Acquisition Rs.1,60,000/- Business Income Rs.3,40,000/- Accordingly, a sum of Rs.74,701/- [2,34,701/--1,60,000] was added to the returned income of the assessee and income of Rs.3,40,000/- taxable

THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, SRINAGAR vs. M/S. ALI SHAH,, SRINAGAR

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri N.K. Choudhryassessment Year : 2006-07

house and Gulmarg land/hut to the Tribunal with certain directions, which we will advert to at the appropriate stage. Ex consequenti, we are taking up the issue in pursuance of the directions given by the Hon'ble High Court. 3. Firstly, we will espouse the Saidakadal property. The Assessing Officer charged long-term capital gain

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

Long Term Capital Gain (“LTCG”, for short) had escaped assessment, reopened his case u/s 147 of the Act. Observing, that the Notice u/s 148 of the Act, dated 06.06.2012 could not be served upon the assessee because as per the report of the notice server of the department the assessee had left India and his present whereabouts were not available

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

Long Term Capital Gain (“LTCG”, for short) had escaped assessment, reopened his case u/s 147 of the Act. Observing, that the Notice u/s 148 of the Act, dated 06.06.2012 could not be served upon the assessee because as per the report of the notice server of the department the assessee had left India and his present whereabouts were not available

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

long period whereas the said land was with the assessee for two years. Therefore apparent motive of the assessee for purchase of land was to earn profit rather than of doing any agricultural activities. AO did not make necessary enquiries and application of mind on the entire facts and law on the issue. This basic issue involved has thus

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

house property in January, 2007, i.e., within a period of less than ten months of its’ purchase by the assessee in April, 2006. 2 Amita Narang v. Dy. CIT 3. The assessee before me relied, as was the case before the ld. CIT(A), on the decisions in CIT v. Mithlesh Kumari [1973] 92 ITR 9 (Del) and CIT (Addl

SHRIMATI RITU KAPOOR,SRINAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-III(2), SRINAGAR

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

long term capital gain cannot be assessed in the 3 Ritu Kapoor v. ITO hands of the appellant as the property in question was sold by 3 persons – the appellant and her two children and as it is not denied that the share of the appellant in the sale proceeds is only 1/3rd of sale price is assessable

SMT. GURJEET KAUR,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- IV (2),, JALANDHAR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our

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

House Jalandhar Cantt Road, Jalandhar PAN: AIKPK 9383L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sh. Surinder Mahajan, CA Respondent by: Sh. Sunil Gautam, CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 22.12.2021 Date of Pronouncement: 21.02.2022 ORDER PER BENCH : The present appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the respective orders passed by the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-2, Jalandhar, dated 19.07.2017, which

SMT. GURJEET KAUR,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- IV (2),, JALANDHAR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our

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

House Jalandhar Cantt Road, Jalandhar PAN: AIKPK 9383L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sh. Surinder Mahajan, CA Respondent by: Sh. Sunil Gautam, CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 22.12.2021 Date of Pronouncement: 21.02.2022 ORDER PER BENCH : The present appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the respective orders passed by the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-2, Jalandhar, dated 19.07.2017, which

SH. LALIT DEEWAN,JAMMU vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-2, JAMMU

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi. T. A. No. 453/Asr/2017 Assessment Year: 2013-14

property, being a plot of land (at Gattha Sohana, Haryana) during the 2 Lalit Dewan v. Dy. CIT relevant year (on 18.3.2013) for Rs.63 lacs, claiming exemption u/s. 54F (at Rs.56,86,491) on the long-term capital gain (LTCG) arising on the said sale. The same stands denied by the Revenue on the ground that the assessee

SHRIMATI SUMAN SABHARWAL,JALANDHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JALANDHAR

In the result, all the captioned three appeals of the assessee are

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

House No. 435, New Jawahar Nagar, Jalandhar, during the period October, 2009. The AR repeatedly contended that these do not pertain to the year under consideration. The Ld. AR further argued that nothing has been brought on record to show that the amount was not actual but coded as alleged with corroborative evidence to multiply figure with 00. Thus

SHRIMATI SUMAN SBHARWAL,JALANDHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, JALANDHAR

In the result, all the captioned three appeals of the assessee are

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

House No. 435, New Jawahar Nagar, Jalandhar, during the period October, 2009. The AR repeatedly contended that these do not pertain to the year under consideration. The Ld. AR further argued that nothing has been brought on record to show that the amount was not actual but coded as alleged with corroborative evidence to multiply figure with 00. Thus