ITO, W-6(5), MOHALI vs. SMT. GURDEV KAUR, KHARAR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Disposal Of Appeal.”

Capital Gain' but 'income from other sources". The assessee's alternate plea that the entire sale proceeds would qualify as agricultural income does not hold in light of ITAT's clear cut finding that the proceeds, in excess o f the amount considered for stamp duty valuation & consequent registration, shall partake the character of 'income from other sources' and assessed

DHARAMPAL SAGHERA,CHANDIGARH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(4), CHANDIGARH , CHANDIGARH

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

Bench: Sh. Laliet Kumar Hon’Ble & Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon’Ble

Section 2(47). The compensation received therefrom is liable to be assessed under the head "Capital Gains" and not "Income from Other Sources". The Hon'ble High Court in I.T.A. No. 756/Chandi/2024 6 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Sarfaraz S furniturewala (supra) approving the decision in the case of Ajay Parasmal Kothari (supra) held as under: - “9. It will also

M/S SATWANT AGRO ENGINEERS,BHAWANIGARH vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, PATIALA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

138 taxmann.com 335 (Hyderabad - Trib.) that "During course of scrutiny assessment proceedings, Assessing Officer observed that partners of assessee firm had introduced cash in form of capital and by way of loan from partners into firm, however, since source for amount introduced in firm as capital and loan was not properly explained, Assessing Officer added same in hands of assessee

ITO, WARD-6(1), MOHALI vs. QUARKCITY INDIA PVT. LTD., MPHALI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

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

section 32 of the Income Tax Act. The depreciation claimed against work in progress is not claimed by the appellant. As the items on which depreciation was claimed are part of finished building, being used or are ready to be used by the appellant, there is no basis for a summary disallowance of 50% by the assessing officer

ITO, WARD-6(1), MOHALI vs. QUARKCITY INDIA PVT. LTD., MOHALI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

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

section 32 of the Income Tax Act. The depreciation claimed against work in progress is not claimed by the appellant. As the items on which depreciation was claimed are part of finished building, being used or are ready to be used by the appellant, there is no basis for a summary disallowance of 50% by the assessing officer

ITO, WARD-6(1), MOHALI vs. QUARKCITY INDIA PVT. LTD., MOHALI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

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

section 32 of the Income Tax Act. The depreciation claimed against work in progress is not claimed by the appellant. As the items on which depreciation was claimed are part of finished building, being used or are ready to be used by the appellant, there is no basis for a summary disallowance of 50% by the assessing officer

ITO, WARD-6(1), MOHALI vs. QUARKCITY INDIA PVT. LTD., MOHALI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

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

section 32 of the Income Tax Act. The depreciation claimed against work in progress is not claimed by the appellant. As the items on which depreciation was claimed are part of finished building, being used or are ready to be used by the appellant, there is no basis for a summary disallowance of 50% by the assessing officer

ITO, WARD-6(1), MOHALI vs. QUARKCITY INDIA PVT. LTD., MOHALI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

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

section 32 of the Income Tax Act. The depreciation claimed against work in progress is not claimed by the appellant. As the items on which depreciation was claimed are part of finished building, being used or are ready to be used by the appellant, there is no basis for a summary disallowance of 50% by the assessing officer

ITO, WARD-6(1), MOHALI vs. QUARKCITY INDIA PVT. LTD., MPHALI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

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

section 32 of the Income Tax Act. The depreciation claimed against work in progress is not claimed by the appellant. As the items on which depreciation was claimed are part of finished building, being used or are ready to be used by the appellant, there is no basis for a summary disallowance of 50% by the assessing officer

ITO, WARD-6(1), MOHALI vs. QUARKCITY INDIA PVT. LTD., MOHALI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

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

section 32 of the Income Tax Act. The depreciation claimed against work in progress is not claimed by the appellant. As the items on which depreciation was claimed are part of finished building, being used or are ready to be used by the appellant, there is no basis for a summary disallowance of 50% by the assessing officer

ITO, WARD-6(1), MOHALI vs. QUARKCITY INDIA PVT. LTD., MPHALI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

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

section 32 of the Income Tax Act. The depreciation claimed against work in progress is not claimed by the appellant. As the items on which depreciation was claimed are part of finished building, being used or are ready to be used by the appellant, there is no basis for a summary disallowance of 50% by the assessing officer

ITO, WARD-6(1), MOHALI vs. QUARKCITY INDIA PVT. LTD., MPHALI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

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

section 32 of the Income Tax Act. The depreciation claimed against work in progress is not claimed by the appellant. As the items on which depreciation was claimed are part of finished building, being used or are ready to be used by the appellant, there is no basis for a summary disallowance of 50% by the assessing officer

HARYANA BUILDING AND OTHER CONSTRUCTION WORKERS WELFARE BOARD,PANCHKULA vs. DCIT, EXEMPTION, SECTOR 17

In the result, this appeal of the Assessee stands dismissed

capital receipts, not as income.\n•\nThe Board acts merely as a custodian/trustee of these amounts. Since it\nhas no beneficial ownership or discretion to treat these funds as its\nown, the cess does not accrue as income in real terms.\nExemption under Section 11 & 12AA\n•\nFor charitable institutions, Section 11 specifically exempts income in\nthe form of voluntary

HARYANA BUILDING AND OTHER CONSTRUCTION WORKERS WELFARE BOARD,PANCHKULA vs. DCIT, EXEMPTION, CHANDIGARH

In the result, this appeal of the Assessee stands dismissed

capital receipts, not as income.\n•\nThe Board acts merely as a custodian/trustee of these amounts. Since it\nhas no beneficial ownership or discretion to treat these funds as its\nown, the cess does not accrue as income in real terms.\nExemption under Section 11 & 12AA\n•\nFor charitable institutions, Section 11 specifically exempts income in\nthe form of voluntary

HARYANA BUILDING AND OTHER CONSTRUCTION WORKERS WELFARE BOARD,PANCHKULA vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), CHANDIGARH

In the result, this appeal of the Assessee stands dismissed

capital receipts, not as income.\n•\nThe Board acts merely as a custodian/trustee of these amounts. Since it\nhas no beneficial ownership or discretion to treat these funds as its\nown, the cess does not accrue as income in real terms.\n\nExemption under Section 11 & 12AA\n\n•\nFor charitable institutions, Section 11 specifically exempts income in\nthe form

HARYANA BUILDING AND OTHER CONSTRUCTION WORKERS WELFARE BOARD,PANCHKULA vs. DCIT, EXEMPTION, CHANDIGARH

In the result, this appeal of the Assessee stands dismissed

capital receipts, not as income.\n\n•\nThe Board acts merely as a custodian/trustee of these amounts. Since it\nhas no beneficial ownership or discretion to treat these funds as its\nown, the cess does not accrue as income in real terms.\n\nExemption under Section 11 & 12AA\n\n•\nFor charitable institutions, Section 11 specifically exempts income in\nthe

THE MULLANPUR GARIBDAS CO-OP MULTIPURPOSE SOCIETY,MOHALI vs. DCIT, C-6(1), MOHALI

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

capital of such cooperative society out of funds provided by the State Government for the purpose; In a latest judgement the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Pr. CIT versus Totagar Cooperative Sale Society decided exactly the same issue as to whether the interest earned from FDR with Cooperative Bank would qualify for the deduction under

THE MULLANPUR GARIBDAS CO-OP MULTIPURPOSE SOCIETY,MULLANPUR vs. PR. CIT-II, CHANDIGARH

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

capital of such cooperative society out of funds provided by the State Government for the purpose; In a latest judgement the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Pr. CIT versus Totagar Cooperative Sale Society decided exactly the same issue as to whether the interest earned from FDR with Cooperative Bank would qualify for the deduction under