SHRI KRISHAN KUMAR JALAN,BANGALORE vs. ITO, W-1, SIRSA

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

capital gain of Rs.49,90,000/-. In his bank account there would be\na cheque deposit of Rs.50,00,000/- paid by the paper company that buys\nthe shares. The receipt is primafacie exempt from tax under the provisions\nof section

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

SH. SATPAL GOSAIN,LUDHIANA vs. ACIT, LUDHIANA

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

90 CCH 0104 wherein the assessee was operating transport bus and survey was conducted u/s 133A . Further, in the said case, notice was issued u/s 148 and the revised return filed was accepted by the Assessing Officer without any addition and the explanation made on the basis of Explanation B to sec271(l)(c) was not considered by the revenue

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

90,00,000/-. The final sale price for the sports Villa shall be determined on completion of the Sports Villa, by adjusting the Provisional Sa's Price as under: - " a) In case of increase in the Actual construction cost as compared to estimated construction cost, 1.15 times of difference between actual constructions cost as stated above shall be added

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, LUDHIANA vs. SUNIL KUMAR SOOD, PANCHKULA

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahay

Section 143(2) was issued and served upon the assessee. On scrutiny of the accounts, it revealed to the AO that assessee had introduced a capital of Rs.2,41,88,998/- on sale of immovable property for Rs.4,32,59,600/-. The assessee has declared a Long Term Capital Gain of Rs.91,738/-. The ld. AO has made a deeper

SH. RAJIV GARG,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE -2, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

90,000/- minus Long Term Capital Gain declared Rs. 5,79,703/-) in the business income of assessee. Thereby, the income under the head profit and gains from business and profession has been computed in excess by the Rs. 14,10,297/- and recomputed the total income of the appellant at Rs.44,53,240/- as against income declared

SH.ASHOK KUMAR GUPTA,LUDHIANA vs. PR.CIT-1, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Section 54 amounting to Rs. 2,01,09,761/- which was subsequently revised to Rs. 2,05,93,405/- during the course of assessment proceedings and remaining long term capital gains of Rs 1,26,45,941/- were offered for taxation after reducing indexed cost of acquisition. It was submitted that the case was selected for limited scrutiny for examining

SH. JAI PAL,JAGADHRI vs. ITO, W-3, YAMUNANAGAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2007-08

capital gain on sale of agriculture land measuring 109 Kanal 7.5 marla (50% share) for a consideration of Rs. 3,75,97,656/- by holding the transfer of land in the year under consideration despite the fact that only 10% of the sale consideration was received during the year and balance 90% consideration was received on 14/08/2008

SHEO RAM,YAMUNA NAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-4 , YAMUNA NAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahay

Section 148 dated 13.09.2012. The AO has thereafter passed an assessment order on 30.03.2014 whereby LTCG liability was determined in the hands of the assessee. Such gain was determined at Rs.3,68,96,060/-. 3. Dissatisfied with the assessment order, assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A) and ultimately it travelled upto the Tribunal vide

ITO, W-4, PANCHKULA vs. SMT. SEEMA DHILLON, PANCHKULA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Shri B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2008-09

90, Sec-2, Panchkula PAN No. AGXPD1603P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Sh. Raj Bishnoi Revenue By : Sh. Manjit Singh Date of hearing : 19/03/2018 Date of Pronouncement : 27/03/2018 ORDER PER B.R.R. KUMAR A.M. The present appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the order of the Ld. CIT(A), Panchkula dt. 11/07/2017. 2. In the present appeal Revenue has raised

INDIAN SULPHACID INDUSTRIES LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. PR.CIT, KARNAL

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Ms. Annapurna Gupta & Shri R.L. Negi

capital Gains. 3. Mayank Gupta 13,90,000 Repair and Assesse acquired the peace if misc work bill. land on 1939. Initially, the Bill attached as vacant land was given on lease to per page a tenant who from his own cost no....to carried out the construction and constructed building and boundary wall etc. and when he vacated

ITO, W-4, PANCHKULA vs. MRS. SUNITA, PANCHKULA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Shri B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2008-09

90, Sec-2, Panchkula PAN No. COGPS0273H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Sh. Raj Bishnoi Revenue By : Sh. Manjit Singh Date of hearing : 19/03/2018 Date of Pronouncement : 27/03/2018 ORDER PER B.R.R. KUMAR A.M. The present appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the order of the Ld. CIT(A), Panchkula dt. 13/07/2017. 2. In the present appeal Revenue has raised

SH. GURDEEP SINGH MAHAL,SIRSA 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)

section 142(1) and obtained a copy of the court order, a perusal of the assessment order reveals that there is no discussion whatsoever on the issue of taxability of interest on enhanced compensation. The assessment order does not refer to section 56(2)(viii) or section 57(iv), nor does it examine the effect of the amendments introduced

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)

section 142(1) and obtained a copy of the court order, a perusal of the assessment order reveals that there is no discussion whatsoever on the issue of taxability of interest on enhanced compensation. The assessment order does not refer to section 56(2)(viii) or section 57(iv), nor does it examine the effect of the amendments introduced

SH. AMARJEET SINGH,SIRSA 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)

section 142(1) and obtained a copy of the court order, a perusal of the assessment order reveals that there is no discussion whatsoever on the issue of taxability of interest on enhanced compensation. The assessment order does not refer to section 56(2)(viii) or section 57(iv), nor does it examine the effect of the amendments introduced

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)

section 142(1) and obtained a copy of the court order, a perusal of the assessment order reveals that there is no discussion whatsoever on the issue of taxability of interest on enhanced compensation. The assessment order does not refer to section 56(2)(viii) or section 57(iv), nor does it examine the effect of the amendments introduced