SMT. URMILA GARG,SANGRUR vs. ITO, WARD, SANGRUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee’s are allowed

Long Term Capital Gain, but now it has been taken as exempt as per the Circular No. 36/2016 dt. 25/12/2016 issued by the CBDT. The assessee furnished a copy of the said Circular, original ITR and computation of income for the year under consideration as well as rectified computation of income also with proof of payment for compensation made

INDIAN SULPHACID INDUSTRIES LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. PR.CIT, KARNAL

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Ms. Annapurna Gupta & Shri R.L. Negi

Long Term Capital Gains and brought forward business losses.The notice is reproduced at pages 2 to 5 of the order of the PCIT. In response to the same, the assessee contended that the Assessing Officer had examined the issues during the assessment proceedings and the assessee had filed the details and evidences with regard to the same and that

CEIGALL INDIA LIMITED, LUDHIANA,LUDHIANA vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

TDS was deducted; no discrepancy was shown. f. On capital gains, AO adopted a legally tenable view consistent with section 50. 8 g. On fixed asset additions, the issue was never part of scrutiny; PCIT travelled beyond his jurisdiction. 5.1. The Ld. PCIT in the order in para 5.2 had mentioned with respect to other expensesmentioned as under: Further, during

SHRI DILRAJ SINGH DHALIWAL,CHANDIGARH vs. PR.CIT-1, CHANDIGARH

TDS, it does not make the transaction unverified or not genuine. 3.3 Regarding eligibility of exemption claimed under section 54F, it was submitted that the issue was raised by the AO and the assessee filed the copy of the purchase deed of residential house no. 7, Sector 3A, Chandigarh vide submission dt. 05/9/2017 and 14/09/2017 and which has been duly

M/S TJR PROPERTIES PVT. LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. ACIT, CC-2, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the Appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

Long Term Capital Gain on said sale of shares were duly declared by the lender in his ITR and claimed it as exempt u/s 10(38) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Further, the claim of said exemption and sale of equity shares by the lender was accepted by his assessing officer. Thus, the source

TEJ PAUL BHARDWAJ,SUNAM vs. PR. CIT, PATIALA

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

Bench: The Ao & Furnished The Details Called

Long term capital gain of Rs.19,74,763/- was not properly verified. (7) Loan transactions and interest on loans required proper verification. (8) Salary was received in cash without TDS

ACIT, CC-2, CHANDIGARH vs. M/S TJR PROPERTIES PVT. LTD., CHANDIGARH

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

Long Term Capital Gain in the hands of M/s TJR from the said transaction. It is not the case of the AO that the said land was a Benami asset held in the name of M/s TJR. Further, M/s TJR paid earnest money of Rs.1,50,00,000/- during F.Y. 2016-17 for purchase of a plot to build flat/apartment

M/S TJR PROPERTIES PVT. LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. ACIT, CC-2, CHANDIGARH

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

Long Term Capital Gain in the hands of M/s TJR from the said transaction. It is not the case of the AO that the said land was a Benami asset held in the name of M/s TJR. Further, M/s TJR paid earnest money of Rs.1,50,00,000/- during F.Y. 2016-17 for purchase of a plot to build flat/apartment

SH. GURDEEP SINGH MAHAL,SIRSA vs. PR.CIT, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

long as the order of Supreme Court is in force, the department should give effect to the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court at any cost and filing of a review petition is no ground to deny the relief to the taxpayers. Fortunately, the taxpayers have not filed any contempt petitions before the Supreme Court otherwise the Court might

ASHOK KUMAR THAKRAL,JAGADHRI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PANCHKULA , PANCHKULA

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

Bench: the Tribunal as pointed out by the Registry. Considering that the issue involved is purely legal in nature, and respectfully following the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji & Others [(1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC)], which emphasizes that substantial justice should prevail over technical considerations, we condone the delay in filing these appeals.3. We shall take appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 167/Chd/2023 for A.Y 2018-19 as a lead case f

long as the order of Supreme Court is in force, the department should give effect to the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court at any cost and filing of a review petition is no ground to deny the relief to the taxpayers. Fortunately, the taxpayers have not filed any contempt petitions before the Supreme Court otherwise the Court might

KARTAR SINGH, FATEHABAD vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

long as the order of Supreme Court is in force, the department should give effect to the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court at any cost and filing of a review petition is no ground to deny the relief to the taxpayers. Fortunately, the taxpayers have not filed any contempt petitions before the Supreme Court otherwise the Court might

PARVEEN KUMAR,229,VILLAGE MANAKPUR-II,TEHSIL JAGADHRI,HARYANA vs. PRABHJOT KAUR,PCIT PANCHKULA, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

Bench: the Tribunal as pointed out by the Registry. Considering that the issue involved is purely legal in nature, and respectfully following the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji & Others [(1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC)], which emphasizes that substantial justice should prevail over technical considerations, we condone the delay in filing these appeals.3. We shall take appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 167/Chd/2023 for A.Y 2018-19 as a lead case f

long as the order of Supreme Court is in force, the department should give effect to the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court at any cost and filing of a review petition is no ground to deny the relief to the taxpayers. Fortunately, the taxpayers have not filed any contempt petitions before the Supreme Court otherwise the Court might

INDER KAUR,SIRSA vs. PR.CIT, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

long as the order of Supreme Court is in force, the department should give effect to the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court at any cost and filing of a review petition is no ground to deny the relief to the taxpayers. Fortunately, the taxpayers have not filed any contempt petitions before the Supreme Court otherwise the Court might

ANIL TUTEJA,FATEHABAD vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ROHTAK, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

Bench: BEFORE: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

long as the order of Supreme Court is in force, the department should give effect to the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court at any cost and filing of a review petition is no ground to deny the relief to the taxpayers. Fortunately, the taxpayers have not filed any contempt petitions before the Supreme Court otherwise the Court might

RAM NIWAS,FATEHABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, INCOME TAX OFFICE, SIRSA ROAD, INDUSTRIAL AREA, FATEHABAD

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

long as the order of Supreme Court is in force, the department should give effect to the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court at any cost and filing of a review petition is no ground to deny the relief to the taxpayers. Fortunately, the taxpayers have not filed any contempt petitions before the Supreme Court otherwise the Court might

KARAN PRATAP SINGH,SIRSA, HARYANA vs. ITO, WARD-1, SIRSA, HARYANA

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

long as the order of Supreme Court is in force, the department should give effect to the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court at any cost and filing of a review petition is no ground to deny the relief to the taxpayers. Fortunately, the taxpayers have not filed any contempt petitions before the Supreme Court otherwise the Court might

SH. RAM LAL,FATEHABAD vs. PR.CIT, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

long as the order of Supreme Court is in force, the department should give effect to the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court at any cost and filing of a review petition is no ground to deny the relief to the taxpayers. Fortunately, the taxpayers have not filed any contempt petitions before the Supreme Court otherwise the Court might

MANINDER JEET SINGH V.P.O. UDHAMGARH,JAGADHRI,HARYANA vs. PRABHJOT KAUR,PCIT, PANCHKULA

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

long as the order of Supreme Court is in force, the department should give effect to the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court at any cost and filing of a review petition is no ground to deny the relief to the taxpayers. Fortunately, the taxpayers have not filed any contempt petitions before the Supreme Court otherwise the Court might