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

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 of the amount considered for stamp duty valuation & consequent registration, shall partake the character of 'income from other sources' and assessed

DCIT, C-4(1), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S WINSOME YARNS LTD,, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

163 of the 1975. 4. As per Circular No. 786 of the year 2000. The deduction of tax at source under section 195 would arise if the payment of commission to the non-resident agent is chargeable to tax in India. In this regard attention to CBDT Circular No. 23 dated 23-07-1969 is drawn, where the taxability

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. M/S WINSOME YARNS LTD., CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

163 of the 1975. 4. As per Circular No. 786 of the year 2000. The deduction of tax at source under section 195 would arise if the payment of commission to the non-resident agent is chargeable to tax in India. In this regard attention to CBDT Circular No. 23 dated 23-07-1969 is drawn, where the taxability

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. M/S WINSOME YARNS LTD., CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

163 of the 1975. 4. As per Circular No. 786 of the year 2000. The deduction of tax at source under section 195 would arise if the payment of commission to the non-resident agent is chargeable to tax in India. In this regard attention to CBDT Circular No. 23 dated 23-07-1969 is drawn, where the taxability

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. M/S WINSOME TEXTILES INDUSTRIES LTD., CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

163 of the 1975. 4. As per Circular No. 786 of the year 2000. The deduction of tax at source under section 195 would arise if the payment of commission to the non-resident agent is chargeable to tax in India. In this regard attention to CBDT Circular No. 23 dated 23-07-1969 is drawn, where the taxability

ANIKET SINGAL,NEW DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the above appeals are allowed

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 939/Chd/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Shri Aniket Singal बनाम The DCIT 4, Amritashergil Marg, New Delhi- 110003 Central Circle-1 Chandigarh स्थायी लेखा सं./ PAN NO: CZCPS6126E अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 1145/Chd/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Smt. Aarti Singal बनाम The DCIT 53, Jor Bagh, New Delhi-110003 Central Circle-1 Chandigarh स

section 142(1) dated 16.11.2019 (pages 164 to 172 of the Paper Book), asked the assessee to furnish details of the exempt long- term capital gains and, inter alia, to provide reasons and justification for the purchase along with documentary evidence, as well as the following details: (i) Since when assessee is dealing in shares and commodities etc. (ii) Whether

AARTI SINGAL,NEW DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the above appeals are allowed

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 939/Chd/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Shri Aniket Singal बनाम The DCIT Central Circle-1 Chandigarh 4, Amritashergil Marg, New Delhi- 110003 स्थायी लेखा सं./ PAN NO: CZCPS6126E अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 1145/Chd/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Smt. Aarti Singal बनाम The DCIT Central Circle-1 Chandigarh 53, Jor Bagh, New Delhi-110003 स

section 142(1) dated 16.11.2019 (pages 164 to 172 of the Paper Book), asked the assessee to furnish details of the exempt long- term capital gains and, inter alia, to provide reasons and justification for the purchase along with documentary evidence, as well as the following details: (i) Since when assessee is dealing in shares and commodities etc. (ii) Whether

ITO, W-4, PANCHKULA vs. SMT. SEEMA BISHNOI, PANCHKULA

In the result appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sanjay Gargthe Ito Vs. Smt. Seema Bishnoi Ward-4, Panchkula H.No. 906, Sec-08, Panchkula

capital gain. In response, the assessee filed computation of income which had been reproduced by the Assessing Officer in para 2 of the Assessment Order dt. 31/03/2016, for the cost of repetition the same is not reproduced herein. The Assessing Officer observed that the assessee had stated in computation of income that the exemption was being claimed under section 54B/54F

PARVEEN KUMAR,229,VILLAGE MANAKPUR-II,TEHSIL JAGADHRI,HARYANA vs. PRABHJOT KAUR,PCIT PANCHKULA, 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

capital gains and consequently, would also get benefit of section 10(37) if the land compulsorily acquired was agricultural land. (Copy appended at page 154-162 of ws).  ITO vs Shri Prabhayya Basayya Reliance is also placed on (858/Bang/2018) (Bangalore ITAT) (Copy appended at page 40-55 of AJC-2): “4.3 ……we are of the view that

KARAN PRATAP SINGH,SIRSA, HARYANA vs. ITO, WARD-1, SIRSA, HARYANA

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)

capital gains and consequently, would also get benefit of section 10(37) if the land compulsorily acquired was agricultural land. (Copy appended at page 154-162 of ws).  ITO vs Shri Prabhayya Basayya Reliance is also placed on (858/Bang/2018) (Bangalore ITAT) (Copy appended at page 40-55 of AJC-2): “4.3 ……we are of the view that

ANIL TUTEJA,FATEHABAD vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ROHTAK, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

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

capital gains and consequently, would also get benefit of section 10(37) if the land compulsorily acquired was agricultural land. (Copy appended at page 154-162 of ws).  ITO vs Shri Prabhayya Basayya Reliance is also placed on (858/Bang/2018) (Bangalore ITAT) (Copy appended at page 40-55 of AJC-2): “4.3 ……we are of the view that

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

capital gains and consequently, would also get benefit of section 10(37) if the land compulsorily acquired was agricultural land. (Copy appended at page 154-162 of ws).  ITO vs Shri Prabhayya Basayya Reliance is also placed on (858/Bang/2018) (Bangalore ITAT) (Copy appended at page 40-55 of AJC-2): “4.3 ……we are of the view that

MANINDER JEET SINGH V.P.O. UDHAMGARH,JAGADHRI,HARYANA vs. PRABHJOT KAUR,PCIT, PANCHKULA

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

capital gains and consequently, would also get benefit of section 10(37) if the land compulsorily acquired was agricultural land. (Copy appended at page 154-162 of ws).  ITO vs Shri Prabhayya Basayya Reliance is also placed on (858/Bang/2018) (Bangalore ITAT) (Copy appended at page 40-55 of AJC-2): “4.3 ……we are of the view that

SH. AMARJEET 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)

capital gains and consequently, would also get benefit of section 10(37) if the land compulsorily acquired was agricultural land. (Copy appended at page 154-162 of ws).  ITO vs Shri Prabhayya Basayya Reliance is also placed on (858/Bang/2018) (Bangalore ITAT) (Copy appended at page 40-55 of AJC-2): “4.3 ……we are of the view that

MUNISH KUMAR LEGAL HEIR LATE SH GURDEEP SINGH,VILL MANAKPUR, YAMUNANAGAR vs. ITO, WARD 5, YAMUNANAGAR

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)

capital gains and consequently, would also get benefit of section 10(37) if the land compulsorily acquired was agricultural land. (Copy appended at page 154-162 of ws).  ITO vs Shri Prabhayya Basayya Reliance is also placed on (858/Bang/2018) (Bangalore ITAT) (Copy appended at page 40-55 of AJC-2): “4.3 ……we are of the view that

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)

capital gains and consequently, would also get benefit of section 10(37) if the land compulsorily acquired was agricultural land. (Copy appended at page 154-162 of ws).  ITO vs Shri Prabhayya Basayya Reliance is also placed on (858/Bang/2018) (Bangalore ITAT) (Copy appended at page 40-55 of AJC-2): “4.3 ……we are of the view that

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)

capital gains and consequently, would also get benefit of section 10(37) if the land compulsorily acquired was agricultural land. (Copy appended at page 154-162 of ws).  ITO vs Shri Prabhayya Basayya Reliance is also placed on (858/Bang/2018) (Bangalore ITAT) (Copy appended at page 40-55 of AJC-2): “4.3 ……we are of the view that

RAM NIWAS,FATEHABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, INCOME TAX OFFICE, SIRSA ROAD, INDUSTRIAL AREA, FATEHABAD

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)

capital gains and consequently, would also get benefit of section 10(37) if the land compulsorily acquired was agricultural land. (Copy appended at page 154-162 of ws).  ITO vs Shri Prabhayya Basayya Reliance is also placed on (858/Bang/2018) (Bangalore ITAT) (Copy appended at page 40-55 of AJC-2): “4.3 ……we are of the view that