SH. JAI RAM,JAGADHARI vs. ITO, YAMUNANAGAR

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

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

capital gain in assessment year under consideration i.e. 2007-08 amounting to Rs. 5,23,23,470/-. 6. The facts of the case are that the assessee filed return of income on 03.03.2008 declaring income of Rs. 99,990/- + agriculture income of Rs. 1,75,000/-. The Assessing Officer issued notice under section 148 of the Income

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

capital gain in assessment year under consideration i.e. 2007-08 amounting to Rs. 5,23,23,470/-. 6. The facts of the case are that the assessee filed return of income on 03.03.2008 declaring income of Rs. 99,990/- + agriculture income of Rs. 1,75,000/-. The Assessing Officer issued notice under section 148 of the Income

SANJEEV BATISH,PANCHKULA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE, PANCHKULA

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

capital, in the assessment year relevant to the previous year. “Substantial expansion” is defined in clause (ix) of sub-section (8) of Section 80-IC and it reads as under: "(ix) “Substantial expansion” means increase in the investment in the plant and machinery by at least fifty per cent of the book value of plant and machinery (before taking depreciation

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

section 71 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') there is an option to the assessee to set off the business losses against the capital gains or is it mandatory to do so. 3. The brief facts of the case are that during the year under consideration, the assessee had business loss

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

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Disposal Of Appeal.”

section (2) contended for on behalf of the Revenue were accepted, such difference would also be liable to be added as part of capital gains taxable under the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961. This would be an anomalous result which could never have been contemplated by the legislature, since the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the Gift

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

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Disposal Of Appeal.”

section (2) contended for on behalf of the Revenue were accepted, such difference would also be liable to be added as part of capital gains taxable under the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961. This would be an anomalous result which could never have been contemplated by the legislature, since the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the Gift

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 (2) contended for on behalf of the Revenue were accepted, such difference would also be liable to be added as part of capital gains taxable under the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961. This would be an anomalous result which could never have been contemplated by the legislature, since the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the Gift

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

capital gains accruing to the appellant amounted to Rs. 27,12,80,840/-, and the aggregate sale proceeds from the sale of these shares were Rs. 28,30,02,560/- (details of the calculation of LTCG are at pages 8–10 of the paper book). 5 4.9 During the course of the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer, vide notice issued

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

capital gains accruing to the appellant amounted to Rs. 27,12,80,840/-, and the aggregate sale proceeds from the sale of these shares were Rs. 28,30,02,560/- (details of the calculation of LTCG are at pages 8–10 of the paper book). 5 4.9 During the course of the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer, vide notice issued

THE JYOTI CO-OPERATIVE NON AGRICULTURAL THRIFT & CREDIT SOCIETY LTD.,SIRMOUR vs. ITO, WARD, NAHAN

In the result, the assessee is not eligible for deduction on interest on deposits placed with scheduled commercial banks under section 80(P)(2)(a)(i) of the Act and the appeal of the assessee is di...

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM आयकर अपील सं . / ITA No.160, 161 & 162/ Chd/2023 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2017-18, 2012-13 & 2013-14 The Jyoti Co-operative Non Agricultural Thrift & Credit Society Ltd. Sirmour, Solan, HP-173025 स्थायी लेखा सं. / PAN NO: AAABT1453G अपीलार्थी/Appellant बनाम The ITO H.P Ward-Nahan, Sirmour प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Vishal Mohan, Sr. Advocate with Shri Parveen Sharma, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by : Dr. Ranjeet K

80-P(2)(a) of the Act. An important point needs to be mentioned. The words "the whole of the amount of profits and gains of business" emphasise that the income in respect of which deduction is sought must constitute the operational income and not the other income which accrues to the society. In this particular case, the evidence shows

THE JYOTI CO-OPERATIVE NON AGRICULTURAL THRIFT & CREDIT SOCIETY LTD.,SIRMOUR vs. ITO, WARD, NAHAN

In the result, the assessee is not eligible for deduction on interest on deposits placed with scheduled commercial banks under section 80(P)(2)(a)(i) of the Act and the appeal of the assessee is di...

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

80-P(2)(a) of the Act. An important point needs to be mentioned. The words "the whole of the amount of profits and gains of business" emphasise that the income in respect of which deduction is sought must constitute the operational income and not the other income which accrues to the society. In this particular case, the evidence shows

THE JYOTI CO-OPERATIVE NON AGRICULTURAL THRIFT & CREDIT SOCIETY LTD.,SIRMOUR vs. ITO, WARD, NAHAN

In the result, the assessee is not eligible for deduction on interest on deposits placed with scheduled commercial banks under section 80(P)(2)(a)(i) of the Act and the appeal of the assessee is di...

80-P(2)(a) of the Act. An important point needs to be mentioned. The words "the whole of the amount of profits and gains of business" emphasise that the income in respect of which deduction is sought must constitute the operational income and not the other income which accrues to the society. In this particular case, the evidence shows

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 10(38) of the Income Tax Act 1961and in conforming the action of the Assessing Officer in rejecting claim of the appellant “ of long term capital gains” of Rs. 80

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

RANJIT SINGH,PANCHKULA vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR, CPC DEPARTMENT

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

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

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