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

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

section 54 of the Act. Under the circumstances, the denial of deduction u/s 54 of the Act to the assessee, which is a beneficial provision, in our view, is not justified. In view of this, the action of the lower authorities in denying the deduction in respect of the purchase of plot in Kansal Enclave, Village Kansal is set aside

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

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

section 96 of the said Act. In the original return of income this compensation received was considered as taxable under Short Term Capital Gain & Long Term Capital Gain, but now it has been taken as exempt as per the Circular No. 36/2016 dt. 25/12/2016 issued by the CBDT. The assessee furnished a copy of the said Circular, original

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

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

section 96 of the said Act. In the original return of income this compensation received was considered as taxable under Short Term Capital Gain & Long Term Capital Gain, but now it has been taken as exempt as per the Circular No. 36/2016 dt. 25/12/2016 issued by the CBDT. The assessee furnished a copy of the said Circular, original

KESHAV DUTT SHREEDHAR,SHIMLA vs. DCIT, SHIMLA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Section 54(1) would not have allowed adjustment and/or exemption in respect of property purchased one year prior to the transfer, which gave rise to the capital gain or may be in the alternative have expressly made the exemption in case of prior purchase, subject to purchase from any advance that might have been received for the transfer

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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, LUDHIANA , LUDHIANA vs. ROSHA ALLOYS PVT. LTD., MANDI GOBINDGARH

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed,\nwhereas the appeals of the assessee are allowed

gain from the sale of shares, which manifests the contradiction.\nNothing more is necessary to specify as the matter is as apparent as\ncan be. Therefore, this is a clear case of issuing notices based on\ndisclosure in the existing Return of Income filed by the Assessee but on\nincorrect premise of nondisclosure. There was no new information\nwhatsoever that

ROSHA ALLOYS P LIMITED, AMLOH ROAD, VILLAGE TURAN, MANDI GOBINDGARH,PUNJAB vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, LUDHIANA, PUNJAB

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed,\nwhereas the appeals of the assessee are allowed

gain from the sale of shares, which manifests the contradiction.\nNothing more is necessary to specify as the matter is as apparent as\ncan be. Therefore, this is a clear case of issuing notices based on\ndisclosure in the existing Return of Income filed by the Assessee but on\nincorrect premise of nondisclosure. There was no new information\nwhatsoever that

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, LUDHIANA , LUDHIANA vs. ROSHA ALLOYS PVT. LTD., MANDI GOBINDGARH

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed,\nwhereas the appeals of the assessee are allowed

gain from the sale of shares, which manifests the contradiction.\nNothing more is necessary to specify as the matter is as apparent as\ncan be. Therefore, this is a clear case of issuing notices based on\ndisclosure in the existing Return of Income filed by the Assessee but on\nincorrect premise of nondisclosure. There was no new information\nwhatsoever that

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, LUDHIANA , LUDHIANA vs. ROSHA ALLOYS PVT. LTD., MANDI GOBINDGARH

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed,\nwhereas the appeals of the assessee are allowed

gain from the sale of shares, which manifests the contradiction.\nNothing more is necessary to specify as the matter is as apparent as\ncan be. Therefore, this is a clear case of issuing notices based on\ndisclosure in the existing Return of Income filed by the Assessee but on\nincorrect premise of nondisclosure. There was no new information\nwhatsoever that

M/S ASHA TECHNOLOGIES,KALA AMB vs. ITO, SIRMOUR

In the result, both the above appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed as aforesaid in respect of impugned orders dt

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

capital account and Rs. 11,00,000/- in the name of M/s. Asha Telecom Pvt. Ltd. as liabilities. But it did not furnish any information regarding sources of these credits and neither any confirmation from M/s. Asha Telecom Pvt. Ltd. was furnished. Similarly, Para 8 of the questionnaire remained unanswered. Vide Para 9 of its reply, it was stated that

M/S ASHA TECHNOLOGIES,SIRMOUR vs. ADDL. CIT, SOLAN

In the result, both the above appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed as aforesaid in respect of impugned orders dt

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

capital account and Rs. 11,00,000/- in the name of M/s. Asha Telecom Pvt. Ltd. as liabilities. But it did not furnish any information regarding sources of these credits and neither any confirmation from M/s. Asha Telecom Pvt. Ltd. was furnished. Similarly, Para 8 of the questionnaire remained unanswered. Vide Para 9 of its reply, it was stated that

TARLOCHAN SINGH ,BHAWANIGARH vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, PATIALA

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

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

245 ITR (AT) 36 (Chandigarh) AND Jagmohan Ram Ram Chandra Vs CIT 274 ITR 405 held that, "where firms books show credit in partners name for which there is no satisfactionery explanation, section 69 is not applicable for firm's assessment." viii. In Babu Lal C Borana 298 ITR 313 Bombay High Court held that, "where the purchase transaction

INCOME TAX OFFICER, MOHALI PUNJAB vs. TAJ LAND DEVELOPEFRS AND PROMOTERS PRIVATE LIMITED , SECTOR MOHALI PUNJAB

In the result, appeal is dismissed

245 : (1971) 82 ITR 831 (SC). Similar view has been\ntaken by the Rajasthan High Court in Addl. CIT vs. Ganeshilal Lal Chand (1984)\n43 CTR (Rai) 120 : (1985) 154 ITR 274 (Raj)., On behalf of the Revenue, CIT\nvs. Ahmedabad Manufacturing and Calico Printing Co. Ltd. 1976 CTR (Gui)\n214 : (1977) 106 ITR 159 (Gui), a decision

M/S FASTWAY TRANSMISSION (P) LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. ACIT, CHANDIGARH

In the result the captioned appeals of the assessee are

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sanjay Gargआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.547/Chd/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14

gains of business or profession". Explanation ….” 19. A perusal of the above provisions reveals that for the claim of depreciation, asset must be owned wholly or partially by the assessee and is used for the purpose of business or profession of the assessee. Whereas any expenditure, not being in the nature of the capital expenditure or personal expenditure

M/S FASTWAY TRANSMISSION (P) LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-II, CHANDIGARH

In the result the captioned appeals of the assessee are

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sanjay Gargआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.547/Chd/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14

gains of business or profession". Explanation ….” 19. A perusal of the above provisions reveals that for the claim of depreciation, asset must be owned wholly or partially by the assessee and is used for the purpose of business or profession of the assessee. Whereas any expenditure, not being in the nature of the capital expenditure or personal expenditure

M/S FASTWAY TRANSMISSION (P) LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-II, CHANDIGARH

In the result the captioned appeals of the assessee are

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sanjay Gargआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.547/Chd/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14

gains of business or profession". Explanation ….” 19. A perusal of the above provisions reveals that for the claim of depreciation, asset must be owned wholly or partially by the assessee and is used for the purpose of business or profession of the assessee. Whereas any expenditure, not being in the nature of the capital expenditure or personal expenditure

M/S KANDHARI INFRASTRUCTURES PRIVATE LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. ASSITANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-CIRCLE-2(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeals are of the assessee are treated as allowed,

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Gupta

245 ITR 84. In the said case, the words of the Circular No.549, para 5.12, dt. 31st October, 1989, providing that the assessed income under section 143(3) shall not be less than the returned income was considered by the Hon’ble High Court and it was held that as per proviso to section