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

68, read with section 10(38), of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Cash credit (Share transactions) - Assessment year 2005-06 - Assessee had claimed sale proceeds of shares as long-term capital gain

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2 (2), MUKTSAR vs. AJAIB SINGH, VILLAGE BHARU

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Krinwant Sahay(Hybrid Hearing) I.T.A. No. 354/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-13

section 54B holding that the same is not allowable against the sale of a capital asset other than agricultural land. The Assessing Officer passed an order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 dated 28.12.2019 assessing the Long Term Capital Gain at Rs.3,68

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

Section 56(2)(viia) are not applicable on the Assessee Commissioner with respect to both of the aforementioned subject sale transactions. However the assessee has failed to consider that the assessee has also purchased 2323 shares of M/s Neeman Medical International BV (Neeman BV) on 31-03- 2014. The AO has also failed to examine as t how two shares

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

Long Term Capital Gain (in short ‘LTCG’) amount to Rs.1,18,79,150/-. The search was conducted in the firm M/s R. D. Enterprise and M/s Agrotech Pvt. Ltd, Company, where the assessee isa partner. The notice u/s 153A was issued and assessment was completed u/s 153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act. As per the revenue, the assessee sold

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

Long Term Capital Gain (in short ‘LTCG’) amount to Rs.1,18,79,150/-. The search was conducted in the firm M/s R. D. Enterprise and M/s Agrotech Pvt. Ltd, Company, where the assessee isa partner. The notice u/s 153A was issued and assessment was completed u/s 153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act. As per the revenue, the assessee sold

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

Long Term Capital Gain (in short ‘LTCG’) amount to Rs.1,18,79,150/-. The search was conducted in the firm M/s R. D. Enterprise and M/s Agrotech Pvt. Ltd, Company, where the assessee isa partner. The notice u/s 153A was issued and assessment was completed u/s 153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act. As per the revenue, the assessee sold

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

Long Term Capital Gain (in short ‘LTCG’) amount to Rs.1,18,79,150/-. The search was conducted in the firm M/s R. D. Enterprise and M/s Agrotech Pvt. Ltd, Company, where the assessee isa partner. The notice u/s 153A was issued and assessment was completed u/s 153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act. As per the revenue, the assessee sold

SHRI RAJIV KUMAR KHANNA ,ABOHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-II, BATHINDA

Accordingly, the ground no. 2 of the appellant assessee stands dismissed as not pressed

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

section 143(3)/147, at an Income of Rs.1,97,95,920 (1,63,62,420 + 34,33,500) and Rs.63,000 as agricultural income, after making various additions, as detailed below: - Long Term Capital Gain Rs. 34,33,500 Deemed Income u/s 69A Rs.1,53,14,125 Property Income Tulip I.T. Services Ltd. Rs. 10,800 Property Income

POONAM MARWAHA,AMRITSAR vs. ACIT DCIT CEN CIR, AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee is allowed

long term capital gain\n(LTCG) to claim exemption under section 10 (38) was based on a proposal given by\nAssessing Officer, exercise of jurisdiction under section 263 was not justified - Held, yes\n[Paras 8 and 9] [In favour of assessee]\n27.\nThe Ld AR further argued on applicability of clause(a) of explanation 2 to\nsection

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

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

section 250(6) of the Income tax Act, 1961 merely on assumptions, presumptions, surmises and conjectures, without appreciating the factual, legal and statutory position of the Law and facts of the case. Amar Nath Choudhary v. Dy. CIT 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming 10% of the total

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

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

section 250(6) of the Income tax Act, 1961 merely on assumptions, presumptions, surmises and conjectures, without appreciating the factual, legal and statutory position of the Law and facts of the case. Amar Nath Choudhary v. Dy. CIT 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming 10% of the total

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

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

section 250(6) of the Income tax Act, 1961 merely on assumptions, presumptions, surmises and conjectures, without appreciating the factual, legal and statutory position of the Law and facts of the case. Amar Nath Choudhary v. Dy. CIT 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming 10% of the total

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

68 (P&H HC) is worth to mention here wherein it was held as under: “Where the assessee sold its agricultural land which was used by it for carrying out agricultural activities after holding the same for more than two decades, gain arising out of sale of such land was held to be assessable as ‘Capital gain’ and not ‘Profits

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

68 (P&H HC) is worth to mention here wherein it was held as under: “Where the assessee sold its agricultural land which was used by it for carrying out agricultural activities after holding the same for more than two decades, gain arising out of sale of such land was held to be assessable as ‘Capital gain’ and not ‘Profits

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, FARIDKOT, BSNL BUILDING vs. M/S VOHRA SOLVEX PVT. LTD, SADIQ ROAD

In the result, C.O. filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Krinwant Sahay

long-term capital gain on sale of shares an basis of statement of entry operators recorded on various dates in some other proceedings not connected with assessee and no opportunity to cross-examine so- called entry providers was given to assessee thereby violating principles of natural Justice, Tribunal was Justified in deleting addition made by Assessing Officer" [2023] 157 taxmann.com

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(5), JALANDHAR vs. SHRI NITIN PAL SINGH , JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue bearing ITA No

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

long period could not have been unaware of the requirement of law in furnishing the evidence before the AO when called for. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred, in law and on the facts of the case, in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,47,43,598/- out of total addition of Rs. 1,50,00,000/-, after admission

SHRI. NITIN PAL SINGH ,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(3), JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue bearing ITA No

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

long period could not have been unaware of the requirement of law in furnishing the evidence before the AO when called for. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred, in law and on the facts of the case, in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,47,43,598/- out of total addition of Rs. 1,50,00,000/-, after admission

SHRI OM PARKASH LEGAL HEIAR SMT PUSHPA VERMA,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(3), JALANDHAR

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A. No. 756/Asr/2017 Assessment Year: 2014-15

gains of the business or profession, and accordingly chargeable to income-tax as the income of that previous year. Explanation 1.—For the purposes of this sub-section, the expression “loss or expenditure or some benefit in respect of any such trading liability by way of remission or cessation thereof” shall include the remission or cessation of any liability

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, AMRITSAR. vs. SH. SHIV RAJ SINGH BAWA, AMRITSAR.

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is allowed and the assessee’s CO, dismissed

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 407/Asr/2016 Assessment Year: 2012-13

long after the ‘sale’ of the subject land. That is, the decision to sale – which is essentially of rights in land, was taken and implemented within the days of the purchase without even the latter transaction being closed, which in fact continued for months thereafter. No wonder, the original owner was also made a confirming party to the agreement. There