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 being exempt u/s 10(38) is fully justified. In view thereof, addition of Rs. 2,11,81,016/- made by the AO is upheld Accordingly, these grounds of appeal are dismissed.” 9. Now the assessee is in appeal before

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

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

147 of the Act. Notice u/s 148, dated 29.03.2007 was thereafter issued by the Income-Tax Officer, Ward-II(1), Bathinda to the assessee after obtaining the approval of the Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, Bathinda, vide his letter No. Pr. CIT/BTI/Tech/151/2016-17/3749, dated 29.03.2017. In compliance, the assessee manually filed his return of 4 Sh. Ramesh Kumar Vs. ITO, Ward

SHRI NAROTAM SINGH,MANSA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -1(4), MANSA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are allowed

gain, (iv) It has been categorically stated in the reasons for initiating the reassessment proceedings that the capital was introduced by way of transfer of ancestral land but the status has been mentioned as individual. In view of the above stated facts, the proceedings initiated u/s 147

SHRI TARLOCHAN SINGH,MANSA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(4), MANSA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are allowed

gain, (iv) It has been categorically stated in the reasons for initiating the reassessment proceedings that the capital was introduced by way of transfer of ancestral land but the status has been mentioned as individual. In view of the above stated facts, the proceedings initiated u/s 147

M/S BLUE CITY TOWNSHIP & COLONIZERS,AMRITSAR. vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,, AMRITSAR.

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

reassessment are held to be devoid of any merits and substance and therefore, same are as such rejected. 12. In ground no. 3 & 4, the assessee has challenged approval granted by the CIT u/s 151 for issuing notice u/s 147 as bad in law. This issue of approval granted u/s 151 of the Income

SHRI JASBIR SINGH ,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-I (2), JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Choudhry, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.426/Asr/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12)

gains accordingly.” 5. Aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us. The solitary grievance of the assessee in this appeal is that reopening of assessment by assessing officer u/s 147 of the Act is bad in law and therefore it should be quashed. 6. We have heard both the parties and carefully

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

reassessment proceedings initiated u/s 147/148 by the AO were void ab-initio because the reasons recorded by the AO to issue notice u/s 148 are reasons to suspect and not reasons to believe. 4. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred on facts and law in confirming the taxability of Rs. 32,00,000/- as Long Term Capital Gain without allowing

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

reassessment proceedings initiated u/s 147/148 by the AO were void ab-initio because the reasons recorded by the AO to issue notice u/s 148 are reasons to suspect and not reasons to believe. 4. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred on facts and law in confirming the taxability of Rs. 32,00,000/- as Long Term Capital Gain without allowing

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

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AMRITSAR. vs. SH. JAIMAL SINGH, L/H. SH. PREM CHAND,, TARN TARAN

In the result, the appeal bearing ITA No

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

reassessment u/s 147 on the ground of AIR Information not being reflected in the return of Income, ignoring the clear position of the law that section 139(9) can only be used to rectify defects, if any in the return of income. 7. The Learned CIT(A) has erred in law and facts and circumstances of the case

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

capital gain by adopting the rate as on 1.4.1981 and other grounds of appeals with regard to not allowing full deduction u/s 54B. 7. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the CIT(A), the assessees before us for the ground mentioned above . Submissions of AR 8. AR had been submitted that notice issued under section 148 on the issue

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

capital gain by adopting the rate as on 1.4.1981 and other grounds of appeals with regard to not allowing full deduction u/s 54B. 7. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the CIT(A), the assessees before us for the ground mentioned above . Submissions of AR 8. AR had been submitted that notice issued under section 148 on the issue

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

capital gain by adopting the rate as on 1.4.1981 and other grounds of appeals with regard to not allowing full deduction u/s 54B. 7. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the CIT(A), the assessees before us for the ground mentioned above . Submissions of AR 8. AR had been submitted that notice issued under section 148 on the issue

SMT. SATVIR KAUR W/O SH. SHINDER SINGH,FEROZEPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

Capital Gain, exemption u/s 10(36) of the Act, deduction u/s 57 of the Act and unsecured loans and the assessees furnished all the relevant documents which were examined by the AO who has taken a possible view. Therefore, it is our considered view that there was a due application of mind on the part

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

u/s 147 of the Act. Objections raised 32 Smt. Gurjeet Kaur Vs. ITO-Ward 3(4), Jalandhar ITA No. 627 & 628/Asr/2017 – A.Y 2008-09 & 2009-10 by the assessee as regards the validity of the reassessment proceedings were disposed off by the A.O vide his order dated 02.12.2016. Rebutting the adverse inferences that the A.O had sought to draw

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

u/s 147 of the Act. Objections raised 32 Smt. Gurjeet Kaur Vs. ITO-Ward 3(4), Jalandhar ITA No. 627 & 628/Asr/2017 – A.Y 2008-09 & 2009-10 by the assessee as regards the validity of the reassessment proceedings were disposed off by the A.O vide his order dated 02.12.2016. Rebutting the adverse inferences that the A.O had sought to draw

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -2 (1), AMRITSAR vs. MS. SAVITA BANSAL, THROUGH LEGAL HEIR SH. PARVEEN KUMAR BANSAL, AMRITSAR

In the result, the revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Udayan Das Gupta, Jm 1. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 240/Asr/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Income Tax Officer Smt. Savita Bansal Ward-2(1) बनाम/ (Through L/H Shri Parveen Kumar Bansal) Amritsar 143001 H.No. 272, Green Avenue Vs. Amritsar-143001. "थायीलेखासं./Pan. Abmpb-3594-K (Assessee) / Acnpk-4131-D (Lh) (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 2. Cross Objection No. 1/Amritsar/2024 (In Ita No. 240/Asr/2023) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Smt. Savita Bansal Income Tax Officer बनाम/ (Through L/H Shri Parveen Kumar Bansal) Ward-2(1) H.No. 272, Green Avenue Amritsar 143001 Vs. Amritsar-143001. "थायीलेखासं./Pan. Abmpb-3594-K (Assessee) / Acnpk-4131-D (Lh) (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/Appellant By : Dr Rakesh Gupta (Advocate) –Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri B. Srinivas Kumar (Cit) – Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10-07-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21-08-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () Aforesaid Appeal By Revenue For Assessment Year (Ay) 2016- 1. 17 Arises Out Of An Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax

capital gains. Accordingly, a show-cause notice was issued. The Ld. AO observed that there was abnormal increase in the price of the scrips which could be possible only if the prices were rigged. In the absence of any rebuttal as forthcoming from the assessee, the LTCG so earned for Rs.482.86 Lacs & claimed exempt u/s 10(38) was considered

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

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

capital gain in the hands of the appellant on which the tax may be imposed. 9. That the Ld. CIT(A) has also erred in not deleting the interest charged u/s 234-B of the Income Tax Act as this interest is not chargeable. 10. That the appellant reserves the right to take any additional or alternative grounds of appeal

SHRIMATI MANJIT KAUR,BATHINDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2 (1), BATHINDA

In the result, both the appeals are disposed off in the terms indicated as above

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

147 of the act. Thus, ground numbers 3, 5 and 6 of the appellant assessee are rejected. 12. In ground No. 7 to 10 the appellant challenged that the amount deposited was out of sale proceeds of Agricultural land of HUF and the AO has committed an error in reopening the case of individuals/appellant and hence the reassessment is liable