1995) 214 ITR 202 (Mad. HC.). In Moolchand v. CIT (115 ITR 1)

MACRO TOWNSHIP PVT LTD,288-289 MAHAVEER NAGAR DURGAPURA JAIPUR vs. DCIT CC -2 JAIPUR, LIC BUILDING JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 399/JPR/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 Dec 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri C.M. Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar (CIT)

…l and quasi judicial authorities should always give the reasons in support of their conclusions. { woolcombers of India Ltd Vs Woolcombers Worker Union AIR 1973 SC 2758: Baidya Nath Sharma Vs CWT (1983) 140 ITR 801(Gau): Mool Chand Mahesh Chand Vs CIT (1978) 115 ITR 1 (All) : Siemens India Ltd vs. ITO (1983) 143ITR120(Bom). In view of the above submissions, it is submitted that the orders passed by the Ld CIT (A) and the Assessing Officer need to be quashed in entirety. Undisputed legal position with regard to the provisions of Section 153C, as settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court: Satisfaction of the Assessin…

MACRO TOWNSHIP PVT LTD,288-289 MAHAVEER NAGAR DURGAPURA JAIPUR vs. DCIT CC-2 JAIPUR, LIC BUILDING JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 398/JPR/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 Dec 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri C.M. Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar (CIT)

Section 153CSection 250Section 69

…l and quasi judicial authorities should always give the reasons in support of their conclusions. { woolcombers of India Ltd Vs Woolcombers Worker Union AIR 1973 SC 2758: Baidya Nath Sharma Vs CWT (1983) 140 ITR 801(Gau): Mool Chand Mahesh Chand Vs CIT (1978) 115 ITR 1 (All) : Siemens India Ltd vs. ITO (1983) 143ITR120(Bom). In view of the above submissions, it is submitted that the orders passed by the Ld CIT (A) and the Assessing Officer need to be quashed in entirety. Undisputed legal position with regard to the provisions of Section 153C, as settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court: Satisfaction of the Assessin…

MACRO TOWNSHIP PVT LTD,288-289 MAHAVEER NAGAR DURGAPURA JAIPUR vs. DCIT CC -2 JAIPUR , LIC BUILDING JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 397/JPR/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 Dec 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri C.M. Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar (CIT)

Section 153CSection 250Section 69

…l and quasi judicial authorities should always give the reasons in support of their conclusions. { woolcombers of India Ltd Vs Woolcombers Worker Union AIR 1973 SC 2758: Baidya Nath Sharma Vs CWT (1983) 140 ITR 801(Gau): Mool Chand Mahesh Chand Vs CIT (1978) 115 ITR 1 (All) : Siemens India Ltd vs. ITO (1983) 143ITR120(Bom). In view of the above submissions, it is submitted that the orders passed by the Ld CIT (A) and the Assessing Officer need to be quashed in entirety. Undisputed legal position with regard to the provisions of Section 153C, as settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court: Satisfaction of the Assessin…

MACRO PROPRIETIES PRIVATE LIMITED,M 28 INCOME TAX COLONY TONK ROAD JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, LIC BUILDING JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 174/JPR/2023[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Jul 2023AY 2013-2014

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;djvihy la-@ITA No.174 TO 177/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@AssessmentYear : 2013-14 TO 2016-17 M/s. Macro Properties Pvt. Ltd.M-28, Income Tax Colony, Tonk Road Jaipur cuke Vs. The DCIT Central Circle-2 LIC Building, Jaipur LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAFCM 3633 D vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assesseeby : Shri C.M. Agarwal, CA jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue by: Shri JameshKurian, CI

For Appellant: Shri C.M. Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri JameshKurian, CIT

Section 153CSection 50C(1)Section 69

…आयकरअपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुरन्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh]U;kf;dlnL; ,oaJhjkBksMdeys'kt;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;djvihy la-@ITA No.174 TO 177/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@AssessmentYear : 2013-14 TO 2016-17 cuke The DCIT M/s. Macro Properties Pvt. Ltd.M-28, Income Tax Colony, Tonk Road Vs. Central Circle-2 Jaipur LIC Building, Jaipur LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAFCM 3633 D vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assesseeby : Shri C.M. Agarwal, CA…

RAJAN SETIA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

ITA/123/2022HC Punjab & Haryana29 Mar 2023

Bench: MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI,MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA

Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

…he Tribunal, while dismissing the appeal of the appellant, had taken into consideration the judgments passed by the Supreme Court in the case of G.C. Aggarwal Vs. CIT (1990) 186 ITR 571(S.C) and Allahabad High Court in Mool Chand (1978) Mahesh Chand vs. CIT 115 ITR 1 (All.) on the proposition that disclosure was made by the assessee in the revised return in response to 148(A) of the Act after search operation and in the revised returns, the assessee disclosed much larger incomes without justification than those disclosed in the original returns. The revised returns had been filed with a view to avoid l…

KAMLESH JAIN & SONS HUF,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-3(2), RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 26/RPR/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur29 Sept 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri N.K. Choudhryassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri R.B. Doshi, C.AFor Respondent: Shri P.K. Mishra, CIT D.R

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54F

…- Mumbai ITAT in Narayana Tatu Rane vs. ITO – ITA No.2690/Mum/2016 – (2016) 47 CCH 0309 (Mumb. Trib.) - DCIT vs. Kingpin Investment & Finance P. Ltd. in ITA No.4447/Mum/2007 order dated 20.07.2016 of ‘A’ Bench of ITAT - Mool Chand Mahesh Chand vs. CIT (1978) 115 ITR 1, 8 (All) - CIT vs. Late Sunder Lal (1974) 96 ITR 310, 314 (All.) 12. The learned CIT D.R. for the revenue, on the other hand, placed reliance upon the revisional order and submitted in furtherance that in the absence of proper enquiry on the relevant facet of section 54F, action of the A.O. was both erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest…

SWARANJIT KAUR,MOHALI vs. ITO, W-6(3), MOHALI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as partly allowed

ITA 425/CHANDI/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 Jan 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 425/Chd/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08 Swaranjit Kaur, The Ito, Ward-6(3), बनाम Vilalge Balongi, Mohali Mohali "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Cxkpk76786P अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

For Appellant: Shri A.K.Jindal, CAFor Respondent: Shri N.D.Gupta, Sr.DR

Section 10(37)Section 28Section 34

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण,च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ, “बी”, च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, ‘B’, CHANDIGARH "ी संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य एवं "ीमती अ"नपूणा" गु"ता, लेखा सद"य BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND Ms. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 425/CHD/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08 Swaranjit Kaur, The ITO, Ward-6(3), बनाम Vilalge Balongi, Mohali Mohali "थायी लेखा सं./PAN No: CXKPK76786P अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee by : Shri A.K.Jindal, CA राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue by : Shri N.D.Gupta, Sr.DR सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing :…

ITO, PANCHKULA vs. SH. VIRENDER SINGH, PANCHKULA

In the result, both the appeals are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 740/CHANDI/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh13 Dec 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Renu Ambtabh, CIT DR

Section 28

…CIT(A) pleading that the Ld. CIT(A) wrongly treated the interest on the enhanced compensation as ‘income from other sources’ and further that in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of case of ‘CIT Vs. Ghanshyam (HUF) (2009) 115 ITR 1, the interest received on enhanced compensation is to be treated as part of the compensation and as such was not exigible to taxation. 6. We have considered the rival submissions of the Ld. Representatives of the assessee. So far as the issue as to the taxability of interest received on enhanced compensation u/s 28 of the Land Acquisition Act is…

SHRI VARINDER SINGH,PANCHKULA vs. ACIT, PANCHKULA

In the result, both the appeals are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 399/CHANDI/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh13 Dec 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Renu Ambtabh, CIT DR

Section 28

…CIT(A) pleading that the Ld. CIT(A) wrongly treated the interest on the enhanced compensation as ‘income from other sources’ and further that in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of case of ‘CIT Vs. Ghanshyam (HUF) (2009) 115 ITR 1, the interest received on enhanced compensation is to be treated as part of the compensation and as such was not exigible to taxation. 6. We have considered the rival submissions of the Ld. Representatives of the assessee. So far as the issue as to the taxability of interest received on enhanced compensation u/s 28 of the Land Acquisition Act is…

SOM NATH,YAMUNANAGAR vs. ITO, YAMUNANAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 552/CHANDI/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh17 Jul 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptasom Nath, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Opposite Gaba Hospital, Ward-2, Tehsil Jagadhri, Yamuna Nagar, Yamuna Nagar. Pan: Agspn6792L (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Chanderkanta, Addl.CIT DR

Section 10(37)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271Section 28Section 34Section 45(5)Section 56

…t, 1894 and was, therefore, part of compensation liable to be taxed u/s 45(5) of the Act and was exempt from capital gain tax u/s 10(37) of the Act. The assessee relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs. Ghanshyam (HUF) (2009) 115 ITR 1 in support of its pleadings that the interest received u/s 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was in the nature of compensation and not interest. The Assessing Officer dismissed the contention of the assessee relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Faridabad Vs. Bir Singh HUF in ITA No.209 of 2004 da…