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)

194A of the Income Tax Act, interest amounting to Rs. 8,91,265/- after allowing deduction @ 50% u/s 57(iv) of the Act, has not been brought to tax by the AO" is based on factually incorrect assumption, incorrect application to the provisions of law and therefore untenable. 8. That the learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax has erred both

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)

194A of the Income Tax Act, interest amounting to Rs. 8,91,265/- after allowing deduction @ 50% u/s 57(iv) of the Act, has not been brought to tax by the AO" is based on factually incorrect assumption, incorrect application to the provisions of law and therefore untenable. 8. That the learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax has erred both

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)

194A of the Income Tax Act, interest amounting to Rs. 8,91,265/- after allowing deduction @ 50% u/s 57(iv) of the Act, has not been brought to tax by the AO" is based on factually incorrect assumption, incorrect application to the provisions of law and therefore untenable. 8. That the learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax has erred both

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)

194A of the Income Tax Act, interest amounting to Rs. 8,91,265/- after allowing deduction @ 50% u/s 57(iv) of the Act, has not been brought to tax by the AO" is based on factually incorrect assumption, incorrect application to the provisions of law and therefore untenable. 8. That the learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax has erred both

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)

194A of the Income Tax Act, interest amounting to Rs. 8,91,265/- after allowing deduction @ 50% u/s 57(iv) of the Act, has not been brought to tax by the AO" is based on factually incorrect assumption, incorrect application to the provisions of law and therefore untenable. 8. That the learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax has erred both

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(5), CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH vs. AVTAR SINGH, VILLAGE- KAIMBWALA

3, Panchkula\nस्थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: BICPP6360B\nअपीलार्थी/Appellant\nनिर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by :\nराजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by :\nप्रत्यर्थी/Respondent\nShri Rishab Gupta, C.A\nShri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR\nआयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 1184/Chd/2024\nनिर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2018-19\nJagpal Singh\nबनाम\nThe ITO\nH.No. 237, Vill: Kaimbwala\nChandigarh-160103\nWard 5(5)\nChandigarh

INCOME TAX OFFICER, INCOME TAX OFFICE BARNALA vs. LAKHVIR SINGH, GRAIN MARKET, BARNALA

3, Panchkula\nप्रत्यर्थी/Respondent\nनिर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by :\nShri Rishab Gupta, C.A\nराजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by :\nShri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR\nआयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 1184/Chd/2024\nनिर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2018-19\nH.No. 237, Vill: Kaimbwala\nChandigarh-160103\nबनाम\nThe ITO\nWard 5(5)\nChandigarh\nस्थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: BQJPS2941C\nअपीलार्थी/Appellant\nनिर्धारिती की

SH. RAM LAL,FATEHABAD 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" & Puneet Singh vs CIT, Karnal (2019) (415 ITR 215) (P&H HC) wherein it was held that “16. The Tribunal relying upon the decision of this Court in Manjeet Singh (HUF) Karta Manjeet Singh vs. Union of India (Civil Writ. Petn. No. 15506 of 2013, decided on 14th Jan., 2014) against which the SLP having been dismissed

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" & Puneet Singh vs CIT, Karnal (2019) (415 ITR 215) (P&H HC) wherein it was held that “16. The Tribunal relying upon the decision of this Court in Manjeet Singh (HUF) Karta Manjeet Singh vs. Union of India (Civil Writ. Petn. No. 15506 of 2013, decided on 14th Jan., 2014) against which the SLP having been dismissed

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" & Puneet Singh vs CIT, Karnal (2019) (415 ITR 215) (P&H HC) wherein it was held that “16. The Tribunal relying upon the decision of this Court in Manjeet Singh (HUF) Karta Manjeet Singh vs. Union of India (Civil Writ. Petn. No. 15506 of 2013, decided on 14th Jan., 2014) against which the SLP having been dismissed

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" & Puneet Singh vs CIT, Karnal (2019) (415 ITR 215) (P&H HC) wherein it was held that “16. The Tribunal relying upon the decision of this Court in Manjeet Singh (HUF) Karta Manjeet Singh vs. Union of India (Civil Writ. Petn. No. 15506 of 2013, decided on 14th Jan., 2014) against which the SLP having been dismissed

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" & Puneet Singh vs CIT, Karnal (2019) (415 ITR 215) (P&H HC) wherein it was held that “16. The Tribunal relying upon the decision of this Court in Manjeet Singh (HUF) Karta Manjeet Singh vs. Union of India (Civil Writ. Petn. No. 15506 of 2013, decided on 14th Jan., 2014) against which the SLP having been dismissed

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" & Puneet Singh vs CIT, Karnal (2019) (415 ITR 215) (P&H HC) wherein it was held that “16. The Tribunal relying upon the decision of this Court in Manjeet Singh (HUF) Karta Manjeet Singh vs. Union of India (Civil Writ. Petn. No. 15506 of 2013, decided on 14th Jan., 2014) against which the SLP having been dismissed

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" & Puneet Singh vs CIT, Karnal (2019) (415 ITR 215) (P&H HC) wherein it was held that “16. The Tribunal relying upon the decision of this Court in Manjeet Singh (HUF) Karta Manjeet Singh vs. Union of India (Civil Writ. Petn. No. 15506 of 2013, decided on 14th Jan., 2014) against which the SLP having been dismissed

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" & Puneet Singh vs CIT, Karnal (2019) (415 ITR 215) (P&H HC) wherein it was held that “16. The Tribunal relying upon the decision of this Court in Manjeet Singh (HUF) Karta Manjeet Singh vs. Union of India (Civil Writ. Petn. No. 15506 of 2013, decided on 14th Jan., 2014) against which the SLP having been dismissed

ASHOK KUMAR THAKRAL,JAGADHRI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PANCHKULA , PANCHKULA

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" & Puneet Singh vs CIT, Karnal (2019) (415 ITR 215) (P&H HC) wherein it was held that “16. The Tribunal relying upon the decision of this Court in Manjeet Singh (HUF) Karta Manjeet Singh vs. Union of India (Civil Writ. Petn. No. 15506 of 2013, decided on 14th Jan., 2014) against which the SLP having been dismissed

SH. DEVENDER KUMAR,YAMUNA NAGAR vs. ITO, WARD -1, YAMUNA NAGAR

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" & Puneet Singh vs CIT, Karnal (2019) (415 ITR 215) (P&H HC) wherein it was held that “16. The Tribunal relying upon the decision of this Court in Manjeet Singh (HUF) Karta Manjeet Singh vs. Union of India (Civil Writ. Petn. No. 15506 of 2013, decided on 14th Jan., 2014) against which the SLP having been dismissed

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" & Puneet Singh vs CIT, Karnal (2019) (415 ITR 215) (P&H HC) wherein it was held that “16. The Tribunal relying upon the decision of this Court in Manjeet Singh (HUF) Karta Manjeet Singh vs. Union of India (Civil Writ. Petn. No. 15506 of 2013, decided on 14th Jan., 2014) against which the SLP having been dismissed