SANJAY SINGAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

71 l/Chd/2018; ITA No. 714, 716 and 717/Chd/2018; ITA No. 718 &719/Chd/2018; and 705/Chd/2018 83. Similarly, addition made by the AO by estimating the expenses on commission alleged to have been incurred by the assessee for arranging such long term capital gain and added under section

SIKANDER SINGH MALUKA,MOHALI vs. ITO, MOHALI

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptathe I.T.O., Vs. Sh.Sikandar Singh Maluka, Ward 5(1), # 1370, Sector 40-B, Chandigarh. Chandigarh Pan: Abzpm7206N & Sh.Sikandar Singh Maluka, Vs. The I.T.O., # 1370, Sector 40-B, Ward 5(2), Chandigarh. Chandigarh Pan: Abzpm7206N

Section 148 to re-assess the time barring assessment. 4. That the Learned CIT(A) has wrongly upheld issue of notice u/s 148 merely on change of opinion. 5. That the Learned CIT(A) has wrongly set aside the issue of disallowance of long term capital gain of Rs. 3,65,71

SHRI SANJAY JAIN,BATHINDA vs. PR.CIT(CENTRAL), LUDHIANA

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

section 57 of the Income Tax Act on account of payment of interest and also considering the history of the case that similar deduction has been allowed in the preceding six years for which the assessment has been made after search. Therefore, the finding of the learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Ludhiana that the assessment has been made

TARUN JAIN,BATHINDA vs. PR.CIT(CENTRAL), LUDHIANA

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

section 57 of the Income Tax Act on account of payment of interest and also considering the history of the case that similar deduction has been allowed in the preceding six years for which the assessment has been made after search. Therefore, the finding of the learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Ludhiana that the assessment has been made

RAJNI JAIN,BATHINDA vs. PR.CIT(CENTRAL), LUDHIANA

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

section 57 of the Income Tax Act on account of payment of interest and also considering the history of the case that similar deduction has been allowed in the preceding six years for which the assessment has been made after search. Therefore, the finding of the learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Ludhiana that the assessment has been made

SH. AJAY KUMAR SINGHANIA,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CPC, BANGLORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Judicial Membe & Ms. Annapurna Gupta, Accountantmember Assessment Year : 2016-17

capital gains. However, as per the provisions of sub section (3) of section 71, the assessee is not allowed to set off capital

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

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Disposal Of Appeal.”

section 48 are to be made for ascertaining capital gains. Consideration as such in a given case may flow from third party. It may have been paid in the past or may be paid at the time of transfer or may be agreed to be paid in future. The date of payment of consideration is not material for accrual

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

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Disposal Of Appeal.”

section 48 are to be made for ascertaining capital gains. Consideration as such in a given case may flow from third party. It may have been paid in the past or may be paid at the time of transfer or may be agreed to be paid in future. The date of payment of consideration is not material for accrual

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

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Disposal Of Appeal.”

section 48 are to be made for ascertaining capital gains. Consideration as such in a given case may flow from third party. It may have been paid in the past or may be paid at the time of transfer or may be agreed to be paid in future. The date of payment of consideration is not material for accrual

M/S LUDHIANA LEASING PVT. LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-II, CHANDIGARH

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 241/Chd/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2019-20 M/S Ludhiana Leasing Pvt.Ltd., बनाम The Dcit, Central Circle-Ii, #168, Sector 8, Chandigarh Chandigarh "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aaacl6365N अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

71,42,769/- Even the Assessee has paid due capital gains tax on the said receipt, as applicable, under the normal provisions of the Income Tax Act. The Auditor of the Assessee had shown this capital gain under the Column ‘other income’. However, the Assessee in the Income Tax return deducted the said amount while computing book profit

ACIT, CIRCLE, SHIMLA vs. SHRI VINOD SHARMA, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Dr Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1449/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 The Acit, Vs. Shri Vinod Sharma, बनाम B-1/3, Circle, Safdarjang Enclave, Shimla New Delhi 110029 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Abkps1560N अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent (Hybrid Mode ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Sh. Vishal Mohan, Sr. Advocate With Shri Ahninav Bazwaria, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Smt. Kusum Bansal, Cit Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 10.06.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09.07.2024

Section 54 of the Income- tax Act. In the present case, in fact, the capital gain is Rs. 51,980; whereas the first instalment towards the flat from the Delhi Development Authority was Rs. 71

SHOBHA SHARMA,SIRSA vs. ITO-WARD-3, SIRSA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 139 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( due date of filing return 31.07.2011) but the assessee has deposited the amount in capital gain account on 17.09.2011 i.e after the due date of filing of return. 4.3 The A.O. asked the assessee to give the reasons for claiming entire capital gain as exempt. In response the assessee submitted as under

PAWAN KUMAR,FATEHABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, FATEHABAD

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

Section 16 or Section 17 of the Act. We, therefore, hold that the statutory interest paid under Section 34 of the Act is interest paid for the delayed payment of the compensation amount and, therefore, is a revenue receipt liable to tax under the Income Tax Act." 9. This position of law has been consistently reiterated by this Court

SH. AMARDEEP SINGH ATHWAL,YAMUNANAGAR vs. ITO, WARD-1, YAMUNANAGAR

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

Section 16 or Section 17 of the Act. We, therefore, hold that the statutory interest paid under Section 34 of the Act is interest paid for the delayed payment of the compensation amount and, therefore, is a revenue receipt liable to tax under the Income Tax Act." 9. This position of law has been consistently reiterated by this Court

INCOME TAX OFFICER, FATEHABAD vs. MAHESH NAGPAL, FATEHABAD

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

Section 16 or Section 17 of the Act. We, therefore, hold that the statutory interest paid under Section 34 of the Act is interest paid for the delayed payment of the compensation amount and, therefore, is a revenue receipt liable to tax under the Income Tax Act." 9. This position of law has been consistently reiterated by this Court

SAROJ CHAUDHARY BALA,PANCHKULA vs. ITO, WARD-4, PANCHKULA

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

Section 16 or Section 17 of the Act. We, therefore, hold that the statutory interest paid under Section 34 of the Act is interest paid for the delayed payment of the compensation amount and, therefore, is a revenue receipt liable to tax under the Income Tax Act." 9. This position of law has been consistently reiterated by this Court

SH. AMARDEEP SINGH ATHWAL,YAMUNANAGAR vs. ITO, WARD-1, YAMUNANAGAR

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

Section 16 or Section 17 of the Act. We, therefore, hold that the statutory interest paid under Section 34 of the Act is interest paid for the delayed payment of the compensation amount and, therefore, is a revenue receipt liable to tax under the Income Tax Act." 9. This position of law has been consistently reiterated by this Court

BALBIR KUMAR HUF,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO , CHANDIGARH

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

Section 16 or Section 17 of the Act. We, therefore, hold that the statutory interest paid under Section 34 of the Act is interest paid for the delayed payment of the compensation amount and, therefore, is a revenue receipt liable to tax under the Income Tax Act." 9. This position of law has been consistently reiterated by this Court