SUBHASH CHANDER GUPTA, H.NO. 1652 8 VISHNU COLONY, RAILWAY ROAD, KURUKSHETRA,HARYANA vs. ITO WARD-3, KURUKSHETRA, HARYANA

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahay

TDS liability on behalf of trust and amount of Rs. 4,42,520/- is outstanding against his name as it was paid to him in advance. Further, there is also a reference to various entries such as: Entry standings in the Balance Sheet as white amount: 1) Abhinav Gupta 17250/- 2) Arun Gupta 226056/- 3) Rama Gupta 675322/- 4) Subash

SUBHASH CHANDER GUPTA, H.NO. 16528 VISHNU COLONY, RALIWAY ROAD, KURUKSHETRA,HARYANA vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KURUKSHETRA

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahay

TDS liability on behalf of trust and amount of Rs. 4,42,520/- is outstanding against his name as it was paid to him in advance. Further, there is also a reference to various entries such as: Entry standings in the Balance Sheet as white amount: 1) Abhinav Gupta 17250/- 2) Arun Gupta 226056/- 3) Rama Gupta 675322/- 4) Subash

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, LUDHIANA , LUDHIANA vs. AB ALCOBEV PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, appeals of Revenue are dismissed, Cross\nObjections of the assessee for

131 of the\nIncome-tax Act, 1961, or a notice under sub-section (4) of Section\n22 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 or under sub-section (1) of\nSection 142 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is issued to Ajay Kumar\nBindal, Smt. Geeta Bindal AB Alcobev Pvt. Ltd., Homeland\nBuildwell Pvt. Ltd. (name of the person

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, LUDHIANA vs. AB ALCOBEV PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, appeals of Revenue are dismissed, Cross\nObjections of the assessee for

131 of the\nIncome-tax Act, 1961, or a notice under sub-section (4) of Section\n22 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 or under sub-section (1) of\nSection 142 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is issued to Ajay Kumar\nBindal, Smt. Geeta Bindal AB Alcobev Pvt. Ltd., Homeland\nBuildwell Pvt. Ltd. (name of the person

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, LUDHIANA vs. AB ALCOBEV PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, appeals of Revenue are dismissed, Cross\nObjections of the assessee for

131 of the\nIncome-tax Act, 1961, or a notice under sub-section (4) of Section\n22 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 or under sub-section (1) of\nSection 142 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is issued to Ajay Kumar\nBindal, Smt. Geeta Bindal AB Alcobev Pvt. Ltd., Homeland\nBuildwell Pvt. Ltd. (name of the person

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA vs. AB ALCOBEV PRIVATE LIMITED , DELHI

In the result, appeals of Revenue are dismissed, Cross\nObjections of the assessee for

131 of the\nIncome-tax Act, 1961, or a notice under sub-section (4) of Section\n22 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 or under sub-section (1) of\nSection 142 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is issued to Ajay Kumar\nBindal, Smt. Geeta Bindal AB Alcobev Pvt. Ltd., Homeland\nBuildwell Pvt. Ltd. (name of the person

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)

1)(b) ITA 3 &144/CHD/2023 A.Y. 2014-15 56 read with Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, in the case of Smt. Kiran Singla, for assessment year 2014-15, which were duly explained by the assessee as supporting the stand taken by the assessee on the amount of Rs.3 lacs, have nowhere been rebutted by the taxing authorities

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)

1)(b) ITA 3 &144/CHD/2023 A.Y. 2014-15 56 read with Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, in the case of Smt. Kiran Singla, for assessment year 2014-15, which were duly explained by the assessee as supporting the stand taken by the assessee on the amount of Rs.3 lacs, have nowhere been rebutted by the taxing authorities

JCIT(OSD), C-1, (E), CHANDIGARH vs. THE SIKH EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, PATIALA

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A) Against Assessment Order Dt. 30/03/2013 Which Was Passed By Additional Commissioner Of Income Tax, Patiala Range, Patiala, Punjab Which Order Is Hereinafter Referred To As “Ao’S Order”.

section 12 i.e. 33% ( 85% minus %age of application of income in the year under consideration ) should not be added in your return of income. Your reply should reach to the office of the undersigned on or before 26-03-2013 at 3.30 P.M. 16. In response to the above letter, the assessee society vide its letter dated

THE SIKH EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,PATIALA vs. ADDL. CIT, RANGE, PATIALA

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A) Against Assessment Order Dt. 30/03/2013 Which Was Passed By Additional Commissioner Of Income Tax, Patiala Range, Patiala, Punjab Which Order Is Hereinafter Referred To As “Ao’S Order”.

section 12 i.e. 33% ( 85% minus %age of application of income in the year under consideration ) should not be added in your return of income. Your reply should reach to the office of the undersigned on or before 26-03-2013 at 3.30 P.M. 16. In response to the above letter, the assessee society vide its letter dated

SH. BALJIT SINGH,LUDHIANA vs. PR. CIT, LUDHIANA -1, LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

TDS of Rs. 2435095/- on payment of interest of Rs. 2,43,50,911/- under section 194A. Further scrutiny of the case records revealed that as per profit & loss account, total expenditure was Rs. 1,40,14,722/- (expenditure on interest was only 11053024) against expenditure of Rs. 2,43,50,911/- on interest alone. This expenditure of Rs. 1

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)

Sections 133(6) or 131 of the Act for further investigation. However, it is noteworthy that neither the AO nor the CIT(A) extended any such notice to the lender for additional inquiries. Instead, an addition of Rs. 3,70,000/- was made based on the directive of a third party. Neither enquiry was made by CIT(A) / AO before

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)

Sections 133(6) or 131 of the Act for further investigation. However, it is noteworthy that neither the AO nor the CIT(A) extended any such notice to the lender for additional inquiries. Instead, an addition of Rs. 3,70,000/- was made based on the directive of a third party. Neither enquiry was made by CIT(A) / AO before

MADHU GREWAL,CHANDIGARH vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHANDIGARH-1, 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

1-5 of AJC) Dtd. 15.07.2017 Union of India vs Hari Singh Civil Appeal No. 15041 of g. 2017, in which it was held that “(2) While determining as to whether the compensation paid was for agricultural land or not, the Assessing Officer(s) will keep in mind the provisions of Section 28 of the Land Acquisition

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)

1-5 of AJC) Dtd. 15.07.2017 Union of India vs Hari Singh Civil Appeal No. 15041 of g. 2017, in which it was held that “(2) While determining as to whether the compensation paid was for agricultural land or not, the Assessing Officer(s) will keep in mind the provisions of Section 28 of the Land Acquisition

RAKESH KUMAR,JAGADHRI vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PANCHKULA

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)

1-5 of AJC) Dtd. 15.07.2017 Union of India vs Hari Singh Civil Appeal No. 15041 of g. 2017, in which it was held that “(2) While determining as to whether the compensation paid was for agricultural land or not, the Assessing Officer(s) will keep in mind the provisions of Section 28 of the Land Acquisition

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)

1-5 of AJC) Dtd. 15.07.2017 Union of India vs Hari Singh Civil Appeal No. 15041 of g. 2017, in which it was held that “(2) While determining as to whether the compensation paid was for agricultural land or not, the Assessing Officer(s) will keep in mind the provisions of Section 28 of the Land Acquisition

PARAMJIT SINGH,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)

1-5 of AJC) Dtd. 15.07.2017 Union of India vs Hari Singh Civil Appeal No. 15041 of g. 2017, in which it was held that “(2) While determining as to whether the compensation paid was for agricultural land or not, the Assessing Officer(s) will keep in mind the provisions of Section 28 of the Land Acquisition

SH. BALJINDER SINGH,CHANDIGARH vs. PR.CIT, CHANDIGARH -1, CHANDIGARH

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)

1-5 of AJC) Dtd. 15.07.2017 Union of India vs Hari Singh Civil Appeal No. 15041 of g. 2017, in which it was held that “(2) While determining as to whether the compensation paid was for agricultural land or not, the Assessing Officer(s) will keep in mind the provisions of Section 28 of the Land Acquisition