M/S SANJAY SINGAL HUF,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Capital Gain by the ITA 655/CHD/2023 & ITA 610/CHD/2023 A.Y. 2015-16 22 beneficiaries, including the appellant; that the company was having Nil revenue for FYs 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 and Rs. 27.87 crores(trading sales) for FY 2013-14; that it had shown no operational activities from FY 2009-l0 to FY 2012-13; that further

SOHAN SINGH GARCHA,LUDHIANA vs. ACIT, LUDHIANA

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptac.O. No. 39/Chd/2012 (In Ita No. 973/Chd/2012) "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years : 2006-07 Shri Sohan Lal Garcha, Vs. The Dcit, 901/2, Punjab Mata Natar, Circle Vi, बनाम Ludhiana Ludhiana

penalty in respect of the addition confirmed by the CIT(A) made on account of capital gains. We accordingly, proceed

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, LUDHIANA vs. SUNIL KUMAR SOOD, PANCHKULA

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahay

capital gain on the same was accrued to the assessee in the that year and the amount of liability has only been reversed by the assessee in the relevant assessment year Thus, the AO added the surplus amount of Rs. 2,41,88,998 (Rs.4,32,59,600-Rs.1,90,70,602/-) as income of the assessee and penalty

SHRI PARDEEP KUMAR JAIN,ZIRAKPUR vs. ITO, W-2(3), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 190/Chd/2019 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Shri Pradeep Kumar Jain, The Ito, Ward 2(3), बनाम Chandigarh Flat No.222, Orbit Apartments, 6Th Floor, Zirakpur "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Advpj6719P अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

penalty proceedings u/s 271 (1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, that the assessee came to know about the passing of the appellate order. Thereafter, the assessee applied for certifiedof the order of the CIT(A) which was provided to him on 20.2.2019 and the appeal was filed immediately within the period of limitation. The above averments made

SH. PARMINDER SINGH MAVI,MORINDA vs. ITO, ROPAR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Capital Gain earned by the assessee at Rs.1,79,13,228/- and added the same to the income of the assessee. Penalty

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

capital Gains. 3. Mayank Gupta 13,90,000 Repair and Assesse acquired the peace if misc work bill. land on 1939. Initially, the Bill attached as vacant land was given on lease to per page a tenant who from his own cost no....to carried out the construction and constructed building and boundary wall etc. and when he vacated

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)

capital gains from business income,  stock valuation,  additions to fixed assets,  penalty expenditure,  brought forward TDS credit, and  ICDS adjustments

PARAS AND SHUBHAM CHAUDHARY LEGAL HEIR OF KANHAIYA LAL,PANCHKULA vs. ITO, WARD 2, PANCHKULA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahay

capital gain will be taxable upon the assessee. However, the compensation has been received by the assessee after incorporation of Section 10(37) of the Act, hence, assessee is entitled for the benefit of this Section and the alleged interest received by him u/s 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, which are treated at par with the enhanced compensation

SH. AMARDEEP SINGH ATHWAL,YAMUNANAGAR vs. ITO, WARD-1, YAMUNANAGAR

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

capital gains arising from transfer of agricultural land, and not to interest on delayed payment; that interest received on enhanced compensation is deemed to be taxable u/s 56(2)(viii) in the year of receipt; and that the assessee could not reduce income in a revised return while simultaneously claiming full TDS credit u/s 199. Accordingly, the AO held

SAROJ CHAUDHARY BALA,PANCHKULA vs. ITO, WARD-4, PANCHKULA

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

capital gains arising from transfer of agricultural land, and not to interest on delayed payment; that interest received on enhanced compensation is deemed to be taxable u/s 56(2)(viii) in the year of receipt; and that the assessee could not reduce income in a revised return while simultaneously claiming full TDS credit u/s 199. Accordingly, the AO held

RANJIT SINGH,PANCHKULA vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR, CPC DEPARTMENT

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

capital gains arising from transfer of agricultural land, and not to interest on delayed payment; that interest received on enhanced compensation is deemed to be taxable u/s 56(2)(viii) in the year of receipt; and that the assessee could not reduce income in a revised return while simultaneously claiming full TDS credit u/s 199. Accordingly, the AO held

PAWAN KUMAR,FATEHABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, FATEHABAD

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

capital gains arising from transfer of agricultural land, and not to interest on delayed payment; that interest received on enhanced compensation is deemed to be taxable u/s 56(2)(viii) in the year of receipt; and that the assessee could not reduce income in a revised return while simultaneously claiming full TDS credit u/s 199. Accordingly, the AO held

INCOME TAX OFFICER, FATEHABAD vs. MAHESH NAGPAL, FATEHABAD

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

capital gains arising from transfer of agricultural land, and not to interest on delayed payment; that interest received on enhanced compensation is deemed to be taxable u/s 56(2)(viii) in the year of receipt; and that the assessee could not reduce income in a revised return while simultaneously claiming full TDS credit u/s 199. Accordingly, the AO held

SH. AMARDEEP SINGH ATHWAL,YAMUNANAGAR vs. ITO, WARD-1, YAMUNANAGAR

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

capital gains arising from transfer of agricultural land, and not to interest on delayed payment; that interest received on enhanced compensation is deemed to be taxable u/s 56(2)(viii) in the year of receipt; and that the assessee could not reduce income in a revised return while simultaneously claiming full TDS credit u/s 199. Accordingly, the AO held

BALBIR KUMAR HUF,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO , CHANDIGARH

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

capital gains arising from transfer of agricultural land, and not to interest on delayed payment; that interest received on enhanced compensation is deemed to be taxable u/s 56(2)(viii) in the year of receipt; and that the assessee could not reduce income in a revised return while simultaneously claiming full TDS credit u/s 199. Accordingly, the AO held

ARJESH KUMAR,PATIALA vs. ITO NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE , DELHI

capital gains arising from transfer of agricultural land, and not to interest on delayed payment; that interest received on enhanced compensation is deemed to be taxable u/s 56(2)(viii) in the year of receipt; and that the assessee could not reduce income in a revised return while simultaneously claiming full TDS credit u/s 199. Accordingly, the AO held

SMT. SHANKRI DEVI,PANCHKULA vs. ACIT, PANCKULA CIRCLE, PANCHKULA

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

capital gains arising from transfer of agricultural land, and not to interest on delayed payment; that interest received on enhanced compensation is deemed to be taxable u/s 56(2)(viii) in the year of receipt; and that the assessee could not reduce income in a revised return while simultaneously claiming full TDS credit u/s 199. Accordingly, the AO held

SH. PARAM PAUL SINGH,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT (INTL. TAXATION), CIRCLE, CHANDIGARH

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini, Vice- & Shri S.S.Godara, Judicialmember Assessment Year:2009-10

penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) will also be initiated for concealing and furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Sale consideration Rs.70,27,3360/- Purchase cost/indexed cost (25.01.1995) Rs. 6,95,198/- Rs.3,09,375 x 582 63,32,162/- 259 Exemption u/s 54 Rs.12,96,000 allowable Long Term Capital Gain