HARYANA BUILDING AND OTHER CONSTRUCTION WORKERS WELFARE BOARD,PANCHKULA vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), CHANDIGARH

In the result, this appeal of the Assessee stands dismissed

263 read with section 144B of the Income\nTax Act, 1961 was finally completed on 23.03.2022 by assessing the income at\nRs.54,10,35,296/-.\n\n1.3 Aggrieved by the Assessment Order under section 143(3) r.w.s.263 and 144B\ndated 23.03.2022, the appellant filed an appeal before the Hon'ble CIT(A),\nNFAC on 22.04.2022. The first appeal proceedings

HARYANA BUILDING AND OTHER CONSTRUCTION WORKERS WELFARE BOARD,PANCHKULA vs. DCIT, EXEMPTION, CHANDIGARH

In the result, this appeal of the Assessee stands dismissed

263 read with section 144B of the Income\nTax Act, 1961 was finally completed on 23.03.2022 by assessing the income at\nRs.54,10,35,296/-.\n\n1.3 Aggrieved by the Assessment Order under section 143(3) r.w.s.263 and 144B\ndated 23.03.2022, the appellant filed an appeal before the Hon'ble CIT(A),\nNFAC on 22.04.2022. The first appeal proceedings

SH. RANDHIR SINGH,SIRSA vs. PCIT ROHTAK, 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)

263 of the Act it is noted as under: “5.1. I have carefully examined the facts of the case and It is evident that the assessee has received interest on enhanced compensation during the assessment year under consideration which ought to be treated as "income from other sources" and should have been taxed accordingly, under the head "income from other

SH. ARVAIL SINGH,SIRSA vs. PCIT, 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)

263 of the Act it is noted as under: “5.1. I have carefully examined the facts of the case and It is evident that the assessee has received interest on enhanced compensation during the assessment year under consideration which ought to be treated as "income from other sources" and should have been taxed accordingly, under the head "income from other

M/S GANESH DASS HUF,SIRSA vs. PCIT, 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)

263 of the Act it is noted as under: “5.1. I have carefully examined the facts of the case and It is evident that the assessee has received interest on enhanced compensation during the assessment year under consideration which ought to be treated as "income from other sources" and should have been taxed accordingly, under the head "income from other

SH. KASHMIR SINGH SANDHA,SIRSA vs. PCIT, 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)

263 of the Act it is noted as under: “5.1. I have carefully examined the facts of the case and It is evident that the assessee has received interest on enhanced compensation during the assessment year under consideration which ought to be treated as "income from other sources" and should have been taxed accordingly, under the head "income from other

DHUNI CHAND HUF,SIRSA vs. PCIT, 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)

263 of the Act it is noted as under: “5.1. I have carefully examined the facts of the case and It is evident that the assessee has received interest on enhanced compensation during the assessment year under consideration which ought to be treated as "income from other sources" and should have been taxed accordingly, under the head "income from other

SH. PARAMJEET SINGH,SIRSA vs. PCIT, 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)

263 of the Act it is noted as under: “5.1. I have carefully examined the facts of the case and It is evident that the assessee has received interest on enhanced compensation during the assessment year under consideration which ought to be treated as "income from other sources" and should have been taxed accordingly, under the head "income from other

SURJEET SINGH,SIRSA vs. PCIT, ROHTAK, 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)

263 of the Act it is noted as under: “5.1. I have carefully examined the facts of the case and It is evident that the assessee has received interest on enhanced compensation during the assessment year under consideration which ought to be treated as "income from other sources" and should have been taxed accordingly, under the head "income from other

M/S DIN DAYAL PURSOTAM LAL,SIRSA vs. PR.CIT, ROHTAK

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

Section 263 was not tenable. In the present case, evidently, the reasons recorded (APB 53) for re-opening the assessment u/s 147 of the Act and those (APB 93-94) for which the ld. PCIT sought to invoke his revisionary jurisdiction, are the same. In similar facts and circumstances, revision has been held to be not sustainable

M/S DIN DAYAL PURSOTAM LAL,SIRSA vs. PR.CIT, ROHTAK

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

Section 263 was not tenable. In the present case, evidently, the reasons recorded (APB 53) for re-opening the assessment u/s 147 of the Act and those (APB 93-94) for which the ld. PCIT sought to invoke his revisionary jurisdiction, are the same. In similar facts and circumstances, revision has been held to be not sustainable

M/S DIN DAYAL PURSOTAM LAL,SIRSA vs. PR.CIT, ROHTAK

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

Section 263 was not tenable. In the present case, evidently, the reasons recorded (APB 53) for re-opening the assessment u/s 147 of the Act and those (APB 93-94) for which the ld. PCIT sought to invoke his revisionary jurisdiction, are the same. In similar facts and circumstances, revision has been held to be not sustainable

J. K. EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,JAMMU vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH

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

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

section 11 & 12, being used for the benefit of any interested person. In the present case, it cannot be denied that the benefit has "directly or indirectly" reached the interested person, namely, the aforesaid Family Trust and, thus, there is clear violation of Ss. 13 (1) (c)/13 (2) (a) of the Act. Once there is violation of the aforesaid

J.K. EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,JAMMU & KASHMIR vs. DCIT (EXEMPTION)-CIRCLE-1,, CHANDIGARH

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

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

section 11 & 12, being used for the benefit of any interested person. In the present case, it cannot be denied that the benefit has "directly or indirectly" reached the interested person, namely, the aforesaid Family Trust and, thus, there is clear violation of Ss. 13 (1) (c)/13 (2) (a) of the Act. Once there is violation of the aforesaid

J.K.EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,JAMMU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION), CHANDIGARH

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

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

section 11 & 12, being used for the benefit of any interested person. In the present case, it cannot be denied that the benefit has "directly or indirectly" reached the interested person, namely, the aforesaid Family Trust and, thus, there is clear violation of Ss. 13 (1) (c)/13 (2) (a) of the Act. Once there is violation of the aforesaid

BABA HIRA SINGH BHATTAL INSTITUTE OF ENGINEERING & TECHNOLOGY,LEHRAGAGA vs. DCIT, (E), C-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

Charitable Trust”, 2012 (12) TMI 818 )copy at ACL PB-II, pages 57-59) and the decision of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of “the Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Sunbeam English School”, 2013 (7) TMI 812 (copy at ACL PB-II, pages 60-64). 10. The Department, on the other hand

SH. LACHHMAN DASS BANSAL,BARNALA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, PATIALA

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

Charitable Trust reported at [2022] 144 taxmann.com 54 (Madras) as under: "Section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Search and seizure - General (Retraction of statement) - Assessment years 2011-12 to 2014-15 - Whether statement recorded under section 132(4) and later, confirmed in statement recorded under section 131, cannot be discarded simply by observing that assessees have retracted same