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

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

disallowance under the provisions of Section 40A(3) of the Act is unsustainable. As in the cited case, here also, there is no evidence worth its name to incriminate the assessee and this conclusion has been arrived at only on premises and conjectures, rendering it unsustainable in the eye of law. ITA 146,147 & 148/CHD/2021

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

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

disallowance under the provisions of Section 40A(3) of the Act is unsustainable. As in the cited case, here also, there is no evidence worth its name to incriminate the assessee and this conclusion has been arrived at only on premises and conjectures, rendering it unsustainable in the eye of law. ITA 146,147 & 148/CHD/2021

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

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

disallowance under the provisions of Section 40A(3) of the Act is unsustainable. As in the cited case, here also, there is no evidence worth its name to incriminate the assessee and this conclusion has been arrived at only on premises and conjectures, rendering it unsustainable in the eye of law. ITA 146,147 & 148/CHD/2021

SH. BALJIT SINGH,LUDHIANA vs. PR. CIT, LUDHIANA -1, LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

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

disallowed under section 37(1) of the Act. 10.1 Be that as it may, be it noted that above consequential order was passed while the present appeal was pending. The part of the order under section 263 wherein the aforesaid ground is considered / taken cognizance still survives for us. The tribunal by virtue of section

AMITA MITTAL ,ROPAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2), ROPAR, ROPAR

The appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Paresh M. Joshi

disallowance of 20% the expenditure under various heads for alleged personal use resulting in an addition of Rs. 41,240/- which is arbitrary and unjustified. 5. That the Ld.Commissioner'of Income Tax(Appeals) has further erred in law as well as on facts in upholding the addition of Rs. 1,01,00,000/- though on protective basis when no addition

S.P. SINGLA CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH (Vice President), SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

127 of the Act ITA 514/CHD/2023 A.Y. 2012-13 4 and accordingly, assessment proceedings were completed under Section 147 read with Section 143(3) of the Act dated 17.12.2019. Thereby, the AO after verifying the details of bogus Sub Contractor Firms numbering in 39 disallowed

SHRI PRINCEPREETJIT SINGH,RANJIT NAGAR vs. PR.CIT-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

127 or 5 providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity to be heard, violating mandatory transfer procedures. 3.4 During the assessment, the AO questioned the substantial deductions claimed under Sections 54B, 54F, and 54EC. The assessee provided detailed explanations and supporting documents, and after thorough inquiry, the AO accepted the returns as filed. However, the PCIT, Chandigarh, initiated revisionary proceedings under

KAMBOJ TRADING COMPANY,GURUHARSAHAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

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

section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was issued on 25/09/2019 and was duly served on the assessee. Thereafter the case was centralized with DCIT, Central Circle-3, Ludhiana vide order u/s 127 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 bearing No. F.No. Pr.CIT- 1/Amritsar/2020- 21/979 dated 24.11.2020 passed by the Pr. CIT-1, Amritsar. Vide notification No.S.O.2033E dated

BABITA JAIN,AMBALA CITY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER ,WARD -1 AMBALA, AMBALA CANTT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed as and by way of remand back to the file of Ld

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

disallowance of Rs. 52,248/- on account of interest on housing loan. 6. That learned AO has erred in law and facts in applying an effective tax rate of 77.5 percent (60 percent tax plus 25 percent surcharge plus 3 percent education cess) on the addition of Rs. 49,74,496/- by retrospective applying rate of tax introduced through Taxation

M/S KUBER ROLLER FLOUR MILLS,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO-WARD-2(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

disallowance resulting in addition to income made for Rs. 19,39,60,866/-, is directed to be deleted.” 8. Per contra, the Ld. Sr. DR submitted that mere preparation of documents for purchases cannot controvert overwhelming evidence that the provider of these bills are bogus and they have admitted the same in their statement recorded on oath under section

PARVEEN KUMAR,229,VILLAGE MANAKPUR-II,TEHSIL JAGADHRI,HARYANA vs. PRABHJOT KAUR,PCIT PANCHKULA, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

Bench: the Tribunal as pointed out by the Registry. Considering that the issue involved is purely legal in nature, and respectfully following the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji & Others [(1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC)], which emphasizes that substantial justice should prevail over technical considerations, we condone the delay in filing these appeals.3. We shall take appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 167/Chd/2023 for A.Y 2018-19 as a lead case f

disallowance. 5. On examination of assessment records, the Ld. Pr. CIT noticed that during the relevant year, the assessee had received an interest amounting to Rs. 1,05,10,592/- on enhanced compensation arising from the acquisition of land. The Assessing Officer had treated the said receipt as exempt and did not bring the same to tax. 6. According

MADHU GREWAL,CHANDIGARH vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHANDIGARH-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

Bench: the Tribunal as pointed out by the Registry. Considering that the issue involved is purely legal in nature, and respectfully following the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji & Others [(1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC)], which emphasizes that substantial justice should prevail over technical considerations, we condone the delay in filing these appeals.3. We shall take appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 167/Chd/2023 for A.Y 2018-19 as a lead case f

disallowance. 5. On examination of assessment records, the Ld. Pr. CIT noticed that during the relevant year, the assessee had received an interest amounting to Rs. 1,05,10,592/- on enhanced compensation arising from the acquisition of land. The Assessing Officer had treated the said receipt as exempt and did not bring the same to tax. 6. According

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)

disallowance. 5. On examination of assessment records, the Ld. Pr. CIT noticed that during the relevant year, the assessee had received an interest amounting to Rs. 1,05,10,592/- on enhanced compensation arising from the acquisition of land. The Assessing Officer had treated the said receipt as exempt and did not bring the same to tax. 6. According

SH. RAM LAL,FATEHABAD 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)

disallowance. 5. On examination of assessment records, the Ld. Pr. CIT noticed that during the relevant year, the assessee had received an interest amounting to Rs. 1,05,10,592/- on enhanced compensation arising from the acquisition of land. The Assessing Officer had treated the said receipt as exempt and did not bring the same to tax. 6. According

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)

disallowance. 5. On examination of assessment records, the Ld. Pr. CIT noticed that during the relevant year, the assessee had received an interest amounting to Rs. 1,05,10,592/- on enhanced compensation arising from the acquisition of land. The Assessing Officer had treated the said receipt as exempt and did not bring the same to tax. 6. According

KARTAR SINGH, FATEHABAD vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, 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)

disallowance. 5. On examination of assessment records, the Ld. Pr. CIT noticed that during the relevant year, the assessee had received an interest amounting to Rs. 1,05,10,592/- on enhanced compensation arising from the acquisition of land. The Assessing Officer had treated the said receipt as exempt and did not bring the same to tax. 6. According

MANINDER JEET SINGH V.P.O. UDHAMGARH,JAGADHRI,HARYANA vs. PRABHJOT KAUR,PCIT, PANCHKULA

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

disallowance. 5. On examination of assessment records, the Ld. Pr. CIT noticed that during the relevant year, the assessee had received an interest amounting to Rs. 1,05,10,592/- on enhanced compensation arising from the acquisition of land. The Assessing Officer had treated the said receipt as exempt and did not bring the same to tax. 6. According

KARAN PRATAP SINGH,SIRSA, HARYANA vs. ITO, WARD-1, SIRSA, HARYANA

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)

disallowance. 5. On examination of assessment records, the Ld. Pr. CIT noticed that during the relevant year, the assessee had received an interest amounting to Rs. 1,05,10,592/- on enhanced compensation arising from the acquisition of land. The Assessing Officer had treated the said receipt as exempt and did not bring the same to tax. 6. According