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 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

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 are void-ab- initio and the notice u/s 147 may kindly be vacated

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 are void-ab- initio and the notice u/s 147 may kindly be vacated

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

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

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

Long Term Capital Gain (“LTCG”, for short) on sale of the land in question. In reply, it was submitted by the assessee that he had sold his share [194,3/8 biswa part] in land [i.e 33 Bigha – 12 Biswa Kacha Nehri Berani] situated at Patti Jhutti within the Municipal Committee limits of Bathinda (Code

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)

long term capital gains on sale of property by taking the sale consideration at Rs.2,03,00,000 and workout the amount of capital 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

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

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

reassessment proceedings u/s 147/148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. B. That the CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the verification letters u/s 133(6) were issued by the ITO Ludhiana who had no jurisdiction on the case of the assessee. C. That the CIT(A) has wrongly upheld the addition of Rs.15960000/- made by the ITO u/s 69 without

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

reassessment proceedings are void abinitio on account of ‘mechanical ITA Nos. 162 to 164/Asr/2019 8 approval’ given by the PCIT and, therefore, the assessment deserves to be quashed. 10. Secondly it was submitted that assessment proceedings not valid on account of the fact that there is no ‘Reason to Believe. For the above said purposes the Ld. AR has drawn

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

reassessment proceedings are void abinitio on account of ‘mechanical ITA Nos. 162 to 164/Asr/2019 8 approval’ given by the PCIT and, therefore, the assessment deserves to be quashed. 10. Secondly it was submitted that assessment proceedings not valid on account of the fact that there is no ‘Reason to Believe. For the above said purposes the Ld. AR has drawn

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

reassessment proceedings are void abinitio on account of ‘mechanical ITA Nos. 162 to 164/Asr/2019 8 approval’ given by the PCIT and, therefore, the assessment deserves to be quashed. 10. Secondly it was submitted that assessment proceedings not valid on account of the fact that there is no ‘Reason to Believe. For the above said purposes the Ld. AR has drawn

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

Long-Term Capital Gains (LTCG) of Rs.482.86 Lacs on sale of various scrips including these two scrips and claimed the resultant gains to be exempt from tax u/s 10(38). However, Ld. AO alleged that assessee’s own money was routed through the broker and received back in the form of capital gains. Accordingly, a show-cause notice was issued

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

long term capital gain earned by the assessee. 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, addition of Rs. 5,33,21,805/- out of addition of Rs. 6,83,21,805/- made by Ld. Assessing Officer, confirmed by Learned CIT(A) is illegal and bad in law since: a). Certifiedof agreement alleged to have been executed

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

long term capital gain earned by the assessee. 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, addition of Rs. 5,33,21,805/- out of addition of Rs. 6,83,21,805/- made by Ld. Assessing Officer, confirmed by Learned CIT(A) is illegal and bad in law since: a). Certifiedof agreement alleged to have been executed

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

SH. JASPAL SINGH S/O SH. SWARAN SINGH,AMRITSAR. vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,, AMRITSAR.

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

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A. No. 445/Asr/2016 Assessment Year: 2004-05

147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' hereinafter) vide order dated 21.12.2011 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2004-05. 2. The appeal is delayed by a period of 87 days, having been filed on 29.08.2016 as against the due date of 03.06.2016. The condonation application dated 11.10.2016 explains the delay as on account of the assessee having moved

SHRI BALJINDER SINGH ,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

long as the ingredients of section 147 are fulfilled, the Assessing Officer is free to initiate proceeding under section 147 and failure to take steps under section 143(3) will not render the Assessing Officer powerless to initiate reassessment proceedings even when intimation under section 143(1) had been issued.” Manjit Kaur & Baljinder Singh v. ITO b) A.L.A. Firm

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

long as the ingredients of section 147 are fulfilled, the Assessing Officer is free to initiate proceeding under section 147 and failure to take steps under section 143(3) will not render the Assessing Officer powerless to initiate reassessment proceedings even when intimation under section 143(1) had been issued.” Manjit Kaur & Baljinder Singh v. ITO b) A.L.A. Firm