SH. AMAR SINGH,JAGADHARI vs. ITO, YAMUNANAGAR

In the result, both the appeal of different assessees are allowed

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

3. Whether the profits or gains arising from the transfer of a 'capital asset' can be chargeable to income-tax if the transfer is effected in the previous year and if no amount is received? " The Hon'ble High Court answered the question in favour of the Revenue. While answering the question in favour of the Revenue

SMT. TEENA GARG,CHANDIGARH vs. PCIT, PANCHKULA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

capital gain on sale of an asset by\nraising queries and after considering submissions of assessee, PCIT\nwas not justified in assuming jurisdiction under section 263 by\ntreating assessment order as erroneous.\n\nReliance was also placed on judgement of Hon'ble Delhi High Court\nCase in PCIT Vs. Clix Finance India (P) reported in (2024) 160\nTAxmann.com 357 (Delhi

SHRI PARDEEP KUMAR JAIN,ZIRAKPUR vs. ITO, W-2(3), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 190/Chd/2019 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Shri Pradeep Kumar Jain, The Ito, Ward 2(3), बनाम Chandigarh Flat No.222, Orbit Apartments, 6Th Floor, Zirakpur "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Advpj6719P अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

200/-in respect of 1st Floor and Rs. 1,64,000/- in respect of 2nd floor while assessing the indexed cost of improvement of residential house sold by the appellant even when the denial by Ld. AO is arbitrary, biased, without any basis and hence deserves to be set - aside by restoring the claim of the appellant

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.

3 Please furnish details of transaction with Ms Morepen Holiday Resorts Ltd., which is now renamed as M/s Blue Coast Ans: M/s Reis Magos Estates Pvt. Ltd has sold land of approximately 1,30,000 sq. mtrs in survey No. 87 I A at Reis Magos, Bardez Taluka, Goa to the above Company. The sale deed was registered

SH. RAMINDER SINGH,MOHALI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(2), MOHALI

The appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Smt.Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1270/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16

capital gains earned by the assessee. 3. The facts relating to the case ,as brought out in para 7.1 of the CIT(A)’s order, are that the assessee purchased land measuring 8 kanal 2 marla for a consideration of Rs. 11,00,000/- in F.Y-2005-06. The said land was acquired by GMADA under compulsory acquisition. In lieu of this

ACIT, CIRCLE 1(1), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S SML ISUZU LTD., CHANDIGARH

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

Capital and Debt Market Ltd. v. ACIT: 118 TTJ 351 (Mum ITAT) - Angel Commodities Broking (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT: 164 TTJ 275 (Mum ITAT) - FedEx Express Transportation & Supply Chain Services India (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT: 169 TTJ 732 (Mum. Trib.) - Bhavik Rajesh Khandra Share and Stock Brokers (P) Ltd. vs DCIT: 8 ITR(Trib) 155 (Mum. Trib) - Kisan Ratilal Choksey

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

gains" was the issue identified for examination. An inquiry was started. In the meanwhile, in the light of section 96 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, the court held in a number of cases that compensation payable to persons for the lands acquired under the statute was exempted from payment

M/S SHUBHAM COTTON MILLS PVT. LTD.,ELLENABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE, SIRSA

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

200 17733.63 II. It is submitted that purchase cost of guar seed in the preceding years was as under: Amount Sr. Assessment Year Weight (in Average No. Rate qtls) i) 2012-13 187627.58 110,40,02,920 5884.01 ii) 2013-14 127788.11 145,98,31,366 7780.47 iii) 2014-15 344485.01 207,06,67,668 6010.91 III. It is submitted

DCIT, C-1, (E), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S MANAV MANGAL SOCIETY, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the department are dismissed

200 39,23,86 6 27,88,15 7 Sardana S/o Shri Gian Singh Sardana, # 3085 Sector 21 D, Chandigarh 5. Anjali Sardana Salary Rent Interest Salary Rent Interest Salary Rent Interest 7,57,407 2,83,000 4,46,329 8,93,562 4,00,00 0 2,97,754 11,27,68 8 4,94,000 3

DCIT, C-1, (E), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S MANAV MANGAL SOCIETY, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the department are dismissed

200 39,23,86 6 27,88,15 7 Sardana S/o Shri Gian Singh Sardana, # 3085 Sector 21 D, Chandigarh 5. Anjali Sardana Salary Rent Interest Salary Rent Interest Salary Rent Interest 7,57,407 2,83,000 4,46,329 8,93,562 4,00,00 0 2,97,754 11,27,68 8 4,94,000 3

DCIT,CIRCLE-1(EXEMPTION), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S MANAV MANGAL SCHOOL( MANAV MANGAL SOCIETY), CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the department are dismissed

200 39,23,86 6 27,88,15 7 Sardana S/o Shri Gian Singh Sardana, # 3085 Sector 21 D, Chandigarh 5. Anjali Sardana Salary Rent Interest Salary Rent Interest Salary Rent Interest 7,57,407 2,83,000 4,46,329 8,93,562 4,00,00 0 2,97,754 11,27,68 8 4,94,000 3

DCIT, C-1, (E), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S MANAV MANGAL SOCIETY, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the department are dismissed

200 39,23,86 6 27,88,15 7 Sardana S/o Shri Gian Singh Sardana, # 3085 Sector 21 D, Chandigarh 5. Anjali Sardana Salary Rent Interest Salary Rent Interest Salary Rent Interest 7,57,407 2,83,000 4,46,329 8,93,562 4,00,00 0 2,97,754 11,27,68 8 4,94,000 3

M/S MANAV MANGAL SOCIETY,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, C-1, (E), CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the department are dismissed

200 39,23,86 6 27,88,15 7 Sardana S/o Shri Gian Singh Sardana, # 3085 Sector 21 D, Chandigarh 5. Anjali Sardana Salary Rent Interest Salary Rent Interest Salary Rent Interest 7,57,407 2,83,000 4,46,329 8,93,562 4,00,00 0 2,97,754 11,27,68 8 4,94,000 3

DCIT, C-1, (E), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S MANAV MANGAL SOCIETY, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the department are dismissed

200 39,23,86 6 27,88,15 7 Sardana S/o Shri Gian Singh Sardana, # 3085 Sector 21 D, Chandigarh 5. Anjali Sardana Salary Rent Interest Salary Rent Interest Salary Rent Interest 7,57,407 2,83,000 4,46,329 8,93,562 4,00,00 0 2,97,754 11,27,68 8 4,94,000 3

DCIT, C-1, (E), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S MANAV MANGAL SOCIETY, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the department are dismissed

200 39,23,86 6 27,88,15 7 Sardana S/o Shri Gian Singh Sardana, # 3085 Sector 21 D, Chandigarh 5. Anjali Sardana Salary Rent Interest Salary Rent Interest Salary Rent Interest 7,57,407 2,83,000 4,46,329 8,93,562 4,00,00 0 2,97,754 11,27,68 8 4,94,000 3

M/S MANAV MANGAL SOCIETY,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, C-1, (E), CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the department are dismissed

200 39,23,86 6 27,88,15 7 Sardana S/o Shri Gian Singh Sardana, # 3085 Sector 21 D, Chandigarh 5. Anjali Sardana Salary Rent Interest Salary Rent Interest Salary Rent Interest 7,57,407 2,83,000 4,46,329 8,93,562 4,00,00 0 2,97,754 11,27,68 8 4,94,000 3

SH. ABHIMANYU SOIN,LUDHIANA vs. ACIT, LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri. Sanjay Garg, Judicial, Member & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2011-12

section 68 of Income Tax Act 1961 is against the facts against law and circumstances of the case. 3. The assessee had claimed long term capital gain amounting to Rs. 80,25.291/- as exempt u/s 10(38) of the Act from the total sale proceeds amounting to Rs. 83,57,578/- with respect to the said share transaction

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)

gains, nor is it income from "other sources" because the provisions of sections 69,69A, 69B and 69C treat unexplained investment, unexplained money, bullion, etc., and unexplained expenditure as deemed income where the nature and source of investment, acquisition or expenditure, as the case may be, have not been explained or satisfactorily explained, Therefore, in these cases, the source