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)

1) of the Act and thus it was a case of an unabated assessment. 7.1 It was submitted that the said disclosed income / documents cannot be treated as incriminating material. It was further submitted that there is no evidence or document which was found or noticed to suggest any receipt outside the books of accounts and the said capital gain

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)

1) of the Act and thus it was a case of an unabated assessment. 7.1 It was submitted that the said disclosed income / documents cannot be treated as incriminating material. It was further submitted that there is no evidence or document which was found or noticed to suggest any receipt outside the books of accounts and the said capital gain

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)

1) of the Act and thus it was a case of an unabated assessment. 7.1 It was submitted that the said disclosed income / documents cannot be treated as incriminating material. It was further submitted that there is no evidence or document which was found or noticed to suggest any receipt outside the books of accounts and the said capital gain

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)

1) of the Act and thus it was a case of an unabated assessment. 7.1 It was submitted that the said disclosed income / documents cannot be treated as incriminating material. It was further submitted that there is no evidence or document which was found or noticed to suggest any receipt outside the books of accounts and the said capital gain

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

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

150/- The return was processed u/s 143(1) at the same income. During the assessment year 2015-16 the appellant has received compensation under Right to Fair compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (RFCTALARR Act, 2013), which is exempt u/s 96 of this act but CBDT has issued circular no 36/2016 as on 25/10/2016

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

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

150/- The return was processed u/s 143(1) at the same income. During the assessment year 2015-16 the appellant has received compensation under Right to Fair compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (RFCTALARR Act, 2013), which is exempt u/s 96 of this act but CBDT has issued circular no 36/2016 as on 25/10/2016

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

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Disposal Of Appeal.”

150) 3 22.05.2009 Agriculture Land measuring 9 Bigha IBiswa 10,45,000 PB Pages 87-96 19 Biswasi (Eng ver. 151- 155) 4 11.06.2010 76,09,250 PB Pages 97- Agriculture Land measuring 138 Kanal7 Maria 101 (Eng ver. 156-160) 5 08.09.2010 2,75,000 PB Pages 102- 1/3 share in 1 Kanal 2 Maria land in Village Raipur

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

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Disposal Of Appeal.”

150) 3 22.05.2009 Agriculture Land measuring 9 Bigha IBiswa 10,45,000 PB Pages 87-96 19 Biswasi (Eng ver. 151- 155) 4 11.06.2010 76,09,250 PB Pages 97- Agriculture Land measuring 138 Kanal7 Maria 101 (Eng ver. 156-160) 5 08.09.2010 2,75,000 PB Pages 102- 1/3 share in 1 Kanal 2 Maria land in Village Raipur

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

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Disposal Of Appeal.”

150) 3 22.05.2009 Agriculture Land measuring 9 Bigha IBiswa 10,45,000 PB Pages 87-96 19 Biswasi (Eng ver. 151- 155) 4 11.06.2010 76,09,250 PB Pages 97- Agriculture Land measuring 138 Kanal7 Maria 101 (Eng ver. 156-160) 5 08.09.2010 2,75,000 PB Pages 102- 1/3 share in 1 Kanal 2 Maria land in Village Raipur

M/S JAIN AMAR CLOTHING PVT. LTD.,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)

150 taxmann.com 108 (SC) wherein the legal proposition so laid down in Abhisar Buildwell has been subsequently followed and reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Further, our particular reference was drawn to decisions in case of Pr. CIT Vs. Shardaben Arvindbhai Patel [2023] 152 Taxmann.com 535 (Guj HC), Pr. CIT Vs. Ms. Kavita Agarwal [2022] 143 Taxmann.com

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

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 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.

1,48,150 sq. mtrs in survey no. 87/1-A, Verem, Reis Magos, Goa from M/s Reis Magos Estates Pvt. Ltd on 26.f07.2001 by way of registered sale deed for a sale consideration of Rs. 9,7600,000/- and land was subsequently sold by you to M/s Delanco Home & Resorts Pvt. Ltd. on 9.4.2007 by way of registered sale deed

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)

150 104 Acquisition 3962 1,65,14,270 105 officer 3959 66,84,980 106 85 HSIIDC 35,060 107 Total 4,90,93,460 That appellant also referred to amendments made in S. 56(2), 57 and 145A vide Finance (No.2) Act 2009 together with memorandum explaining Finance Bill 2009 as reported in ITR 183(St) page

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)

150 104 Acquisition 3962 1,65,14,270 105 officer 3959 66,84,980 106 85 HSIIDC 35,060 107 Total 4,90,93,460 That appellant also referred to amendments made in S. 56(2), 57 and 145A vide Finance (No.2) Act 2009 together with memorandum explaining Finance Bill 2009 as reported in ITR 183(St) page

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)

150 104 Acquisition 3962 1,65,14,270 105 officer 3959 66,84,980 106 85 HSIIDC 35,060 107 Total 4,90,93,460 That appellant also referred to amendments made in S. 56(2), 57 and 145A vide Finance (No.2) Act 2009 together with memorandum explaining Finance Bill 2009 as reported in ITR 183(St) page

SH. RANDHIR 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)

150 104 Acquisition 3962 1,65,14,270 105 officer 3959 66,84,980 106 85 HSIIDC 35,060 107 Total 4,90,93,460 That appellant also referred to amendments made in S. 56(2), 57 and 145A vide Finance (No.2) Act 2009 together with memorandum explaining Finance Bill 2009 as reported in ITR 183(St) page

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)

150 104 Acquisition 3962 1,65,14,270 105 officer 3959 66,84,980 106 85 HSIIDC 35,060 107 Total 4,90,93,460 That appellant also referred to amendments made in S. 56(2), 57 and 145A vide Finance (No.2) Act 2009 together with memorandum explaining Finance Bill 2009 as reported in ITR 183(St) page