AJMER SINGH,MOHALI vs. ITO, W-6(5), MOHAL

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Disposal Of Appeal.”

section 144 r.w.s 147 of the Act wherein the AO referring to the assessment proceedings in the case of the wife of the assessee Smt. Baldev Kaur wherein she had stated in her affidavit that the deposit in her bank account pertained to her husband, Shri Ajmer Singh who has sold his agriculture land as per the registered sale deed

AJMER SINGH,MOHALI vs. ITO, W-6(5), MOHAL

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Disposal Of Appeal.”

section 144 r.w.s 147 of the Act wherein the AO referring to the assessment proceedings in the case of the wife of the assessee Smt. Baldev Kaur wherein she had stated in her affidavit that the deposit in her bank account pertained to her husband, Shri Ajmer Singh who has sold his agriculture land as per the registered sale deed

M/S PURE DRINK LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT,CIRCLE, PATIALA

Bench: Hon'Ble Chandigarh Itat Was 27Th March 2020. (Ii) It Is Submitted That Management Of Appellant Company Is Based Is Delhi. Owing To Covid-19 Pandemic Nationwide Lock Down Was Enforced By The Government From 22Nd March 2020 & Therefore The Appellant Was Unable To Physically File The Appeal Documents Before Hon'Ble Itat.

150 Crores. The execution of sale deed and receipt of consideration gave rise to income in the form of capital gain in the hands of the assessee and as per the office record of the assessee had not filed its return of income. In response the assessee filed the return of income on 27/04/2015 declaring NIL income, thereafter

M/S BLUE COAST INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT P. LTD.,SOLAN vs. DCIT, PARWANOO

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

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sanjay Gargआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 652/Chd/2017 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09 M/S Blue Coast Infrastructure Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Development P. Ltd., 7, Income Tax, Circle, बनाम Shopping Complex, Sector-1, Parwanoo Parwanoo, Distt. Solan, H.P.

section 133A of the Income-tax act was carried out at the premises of the assessee during the course of which some documents regarding the sale of land by the assessee M/s. Delanco Home Resorts Private limited have been found. The assessing officer, accordingly, through this letter called for information regarding the above aforesaid sale deed asking the assessee

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

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

section 154 of the Act by the representative of the assessee was nonest in the eyes of the law. 6. Being aggrieved the assessee carried the matter to the Ld. CIT(A) and submitted as under: "For the sake of facility we beg to make the following written submissions which may kindly be considered while disposing of the appeal noted

SHRI SATISH KUMAR,SANGRUR vs. ITO, WARD, SANGRUR

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

section 154 of the Act by the representative of the assessee was nonest in the eyes of the law. 6. Being aggrieved the assessee carried the matter to the Ld. CIT(A) and submitted as under: "For the sake of facility we beg to make the following written submissions which may kindly be considered while disposing of the appeal noted

SH. VIBHAV JAIN,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-III, LUDHIANA

In the result, the ground no

Bench: SHRI. SANJAY GARG (Judicial Member), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

section 153A r.w.s 143(3) is bad in law. 6.3 It was submitted that it is a trite law that incriminating material must be detected as a result of search on the applicant and such incriminating material should be qua the addition proposed to be made against the applicant and in the present case there is no such incriminating material

SH. ASHISH JAIN,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-III, LUDHIANA

In the result, the ground no

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

section 153A r.w.s 143(3) is bad in law. 7.3 It was submitted that it is a trite law that incriminating material must be detected as a result of search on the applicant and such incriminating material should be qua the addition proposed to be made against the applicant and in the present case there is no such incriminating material

SH. BIPAN JAIN,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-III, LUDHIANA

In the result, the ground no

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

section 153A r.w.s 143(3) is bad in law. 7.3 It was submitted that it is a trite law that incriminating material must be detected as a result of search on the applicant and such incriminating material should be qua the addition proposed to be made against the applicant and in the present case there is no such incriminating material

SH. ASHISH JAIN,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-III, LUDHIANA

In the result, the ground no

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

section 153A r.w.s 143(3) is bad in law. 7.3 It was submitted that it is a trite law that incriminating material must be detected as a result of search on the applicant and such incriminating material should be qua the addition proposed to be made against the applicant and in the present case there is no such incriminating material

SH. AKHIL JAIN,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-III, LUDHIANA

In the result, the ground no

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

section 153A r.w.s 143(3) is bad in law. 7.3 It was submitted that it is a trite law that incriminating material must be detected as a result of search on the applicant and such incriminating material should be qua the addition proposed to be made against the applicant and in the present case there is no such incriminating material

SH. MAHESH CHUGH,CHANDIGARH vs. PR.CIT-2, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

150) {A} Investment in residential property (3113) : 2,27,50,000 (including 10,15,000 renovation Deduction eligibility : Investment in residential property x capital gains/net consideration Here : 2,27,50.000x2.04,51,233/2,51,75,000 = 1,85,18,031 Capital gains of property 2&3 after deduction

M/S GANESH DASS HUF,SIRSA vs. PCIT, 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)

section 263 is bad in law and liable to be quashed. 10.4 The Ld. AR had also filed the consolidated written submission in support of the appeals of the assessees which are taken on record and are reproduced hereinbelow: In the matters of: Shri Ganesh Dass (HUF) and others Sr. No. Name of assessee ITA No(s) A.Y. (Assessee

SURJEET SINGH,SIRSA vs. PCIT, ROHTAK, 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)

section 263 is bad in law and liable to be quashed. 10.4 The Ld. AR had also filed the consolidated written submission in support of the appeals of the assessees which are taken on record and are reproduced hereinbelow: In the matters of: Shri Ganesh Dass (HUF) and others Sr. No. Name of assessee ITA No(s) A.Y. (Assessee

SH. PARAMJEET SINGH,SIRSA vs. PCIT, 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)

section 263 is bad in law and liable to be quashed. 10.4 The Ld. AR had also filed the consolidated written submission in support of the appeals of the assessees which are taken on record and are reproduced hereinbelow: In the matters of: Shri Ganesh Dass (HUF) and others Sr. No. Name of assessee ITA No(s) A.Y. (Assessee

SH. ARVAIL SINGH,SIRSA vs. PCIT, 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)

section 263 is bad in law and liable to be quashed. 10.4 The Ld. AR had also filed the consolidated written submission in support of the appeals of the assessees which are taken on record and are reproduced hereinbelow: In the matters of: Shri Ganesh Dass (HUF) and others Sr. No. Name of assessee ITA No(s) A.Y. (Assessee

SH. KASHMIR SINGH SANDHA,SIRSA vs. PCIT, 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)

section 263 is bad in law and liable to be quashed. 10.4 The Ld. AR had also filed the consolidated written submission in support of the appeals of the assessees which are taken on record and are reproduced hereinbelow: In the matters of: Shri Ganesh Dass (HUF) and others Sr. No. Name of assessee ITA No(s) A.Y. (Assessee

DHUNI CHAND HUF,SIRSA vs. PCIT, 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)

section 263 is bad in law and liable to be quashed. 10.4 The Ld. AR had also filed the consolidated written submission in support of the appeals of the assessees which are taken on record and are reproduced hereinbelow: In the matters of: Shri Ganesh Dass (HUF) and others Sr. No. Name of assessee ITA No(s) A.Y. (Assessee