KARNAIL SINGH,UK vs. JCIT (OSD) INTL. TAXATION, CIRCLE, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stands allowed

penalty under the Income Tax Act and against various judicial pronouncements. 9. That the lower authorities have failed to appreciate that this is a simple case where the assessee declared the income under the head Income From House Property

KARNAIL SINGH,UK vs. JCIT (OSD) INTL. TAXATION, CIRCLE, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stands allowed

penalty under the Income Tax Act and against various judicial pronouncements. 9. That the lower authorities have failed to appreciate that this is a simple case where the assessee declared the income under the head Income From House Property

KARNAIL SINGH,UK vs. JCIT (OSD) INTL. TAXATION, CIRCLE, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stands allowed

penalty under the Income Tax Act and against various judicial pronouncements. 9. That the lower authorities have failed to appreciate that this is a simple case where the assessee declared the income under the head Income From House Property

KARNAIL SINGH,UK vs. JCIT (OSD) INTL. TAXATION, CIRCLE, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stands allowed

penalty under the Income Tax Act and against various judicial pronouncements. 9. That the lower authorities have failed to appreciate that this is a simple case where the assessee declared the income under the head Income From House Property

GURPARTAP SINGH KAIRON,CHANDIGARH, INDIA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE, WARD-2(1), , CHANDIGARH, INDIA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Appeal Is Finally Heard & Disposed Off.”

penalty is bad in law since the addition proposed in unsustainable in law. 5. That the appellant craves to add, amend, or alter grounds of appeal before the appeal is finally heard and disposed off.” 3. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the assessee filed his return of income declaring income

M/S Y.D.SOLUTIONS,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO WARD-4(5), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

house property. The assessee carried the matter upto the level of Tribunal but could not succeed. ITA-41/CHD/2020 A.Y. 2013-14 Page 4 of 6 5. In the me antime, the AO levied the impugned penalty

RAJIV KUMAR GOYAL,DHURI vs. DCIT, CC-2, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: This Hon’Ble Tribunal Under Section 253 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 As Amended From Time To Time. 2. The Assessee Is Aggrieved By Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Dated 03/02/2023 In Appeal No. 10850/2018-19/It/Cit(A)-5/Ldh/2021-22 For A.Y. 2019-20 Under Section 250(6) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Which Was Dismissed. Therefore The Present Second Appeal Under Section 253 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Before Us Against The Aforesaid Order Dt. 03/02/2023 Which Is Hereiafter Referred To As The Impugned Order. Factual Matrix 3. The Assessee Had For The Relevant Year I.E; A.Y. 2019-20 Was Also Engaged In The Same Business I.E; Manufacturing Of Pvc Pipes & Had Filed

house property’, (iii) ‘profits and gains from business or profession’, (iv) ‘capital gains’ and (v) ‘income from other sources’ – cannot at all be adjusted against unexplained investment or expenditure. What is necessary as per Hon. Gujarat High Court is that source of acquisition of asset or expenditure should be clearly identifiable. In the case before Hon. Gujarat High Court

ASHISH ARORA,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

The appeals of the Assessee are allowed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2009-10

house property and appellant claimed deduction u/s 54 of the Act. The Assessing Officer has treated the income declared/ surrendered during the survey under section 133A as deemed income in view of the decision of the jurisdiction High Court in the case of Kim Pharma Pvt. Ltd. (2013) 35 Taxman and did not allow the Long Term Capital Gain computed

HITEISH ARORA,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

The appeals of the Assessee are allowed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2009-10

house property and appellant claimed deduction u/s 54 of the Act. The Assessing Officer has treated the income declared/ surrendered during the survey under section 133A as deemed income in view of the decision of the jurisdiction High Court in the case of Kim Pharma Pvt. Ltd. (2013) 35 Taxman and did not allow the Long Term Capital Gain computed

SHRI PARDEEP KUMAR JAIN,ZIRAKPUR vs. ITO, W-2(3), CHANDIGARH

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 190/Chd/2019 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Shri Pradeep Kumar Jain, The Ito, Ward 2(3), बनाम Chandigarh Flat No.222, Orbit Apartments, 6Th Floor, Zirakpur "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Advpj6719P अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

penalty proceedings u/s 271 (1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, that the assessee came to know about the passing of the appellate order. Thereafter, the assessee applied for certifiedof the order of the CIT(A) which was provided to him on 20.2.2019 and the appeal was filed immediately within the period of limitation. The above averments made

SHRI DINESH DUA,DELHI vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptaassessment Year : 2008-09

property since he had invested the amount of capital gain in the purchase of another residential house ITA Nos. 1474 to1476/Chd/2017 & 378, 379 & 395/Chd/2016- Dinesh Dua, Delhi 8 within the stipulated time period as per the requirements of the Act. The Ld. Assessing officer, however, disallowed exemption u/s 54 of the Act from the said capital gain on the ground

SH. DINESH DUA,DELHI vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptaassessment Year : 2008-09

property since he had invested the amount of capital gain in the purchase of another residential house ITA Nos. 1474 to1476/Chd/2017 & 378, 379 & 395/Chd/2016- Dinesh Dua, Delhi 8 within the stipulated time period as per the requirements of the Act. The Ld. Assessing officer, however, disallowed exemption u/s 54 of the Act from the said capital gain on the ground

SH.DINESH DUA,DELHI vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptaassessment Year : 2008-09

property since he had invested the amount of capital gain in the purchase of another residential house ITA Nos. 1474 to1476/Chd/2017 & 378, 379 & 395/Chd/2016- Dinesh Dua, Delhi 8 within the stipulated time period as per the requirements of the Act. The Ld. Assessing officer, however, disallowed exemption u/s 54 of the Act from the said capital gain on the ground

M/S SATWANT AGRO ENGINEERS,BHAWANIGARH vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, PATIALA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

house property, profits and gains of business or profession, or capital gains, nor is it income from "other sources" because the provisions of sections 69,69A, 69B and 69C treat unexplained investment, unexplained money, bullion, etc., and unexplained expenditure as deemed income where the nature and source of investment, acquisition or expenditure, as the case may be, have not been

SHRI BALBIR SINGH VERMA,SHIMLA vs. PR.CIT, SHIMLA

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

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

house property and salary as a sitting MLA from HP Vidhan Sabha. Key issues examined included deductions claimed under Section 24(b) for interest on borrowed capital, motor car expenses, loans and advances, unsecured loans, and additional income of Rs. 1,25,00,000/- declared post a survey under Section 133A conducted on 04.03.2015. 3.2 Regarding Interest Claimed under Section

THE PUNJAB STATE FEDERATION OF COOPERATIVE HOUSE BUILDING SOCIETIES LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

In the result, both the above appeals of the Assessee are dismissed

Bench: the appeal is finally heard.

property, business/profession, capital gains, and other sources. The case was selected for scrutiny, and notices under sections 143(2) and 142(1) were issued. The assessee’s counsel attended and filed submissions. The assessee had shown receipts including interest from member societies and interest from banks, and had claimed the entire income including interest and other miscellaneous receipts as eligible

THE PUNJAB STATE FEDERATION OF COOPERATIVE HOUSE BUILDING SOCIETIES LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. ACIT, CHANDIGARH

In the result, both the above appeals of the Assessee are dismissed

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

property, business/profession, capital gains, and other sources. The case was selected for scrutiny, and notices under sections 143(2) and 142(1) were issued. The assessee’s counsel attended and filed submissions. The assessee had shown receipts including interest from member societies and interest from banks, and had claimed the entire income including interest and other miscellaneous receipts as eligible

M/S CAPRI DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. ACIT, C-4(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptaassessment Year : 2013-14

house property’. However, the assessee company in this case was involved in the business of real estate. The rental income was returned as the main business income and, hence, the loan taken was for business purposes. He, therefore, denied the deduction u/s 24(b) of the Act and simultaneously initiated penalty