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

In the result, this appeal of the Assessee stands dismissed

property, to contract, and to sue or be sued in its own name, to\nexercise powers conferred on, and perform the functions assigned to it\nunder this Act.\n1. 3. Further, Section 24 of the Act (Relevant extract of Section 24 is\nmentioned at page 13 of the BOCW Act, 1996) lays down that the Board\nshall have the responsibility

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

In the result, this appeal of the Assessee stands dismissed

property, to contract, and to sue or be sued in its own name, to\nexercise powers conferred on, and perform the functions assigned to it\nunder this Act.\n\n1. 3. Further, Section 24 of the Act (Relevant extract of Section 24 is\nmentioned at page 13 of the BOCW Act, 1996) lays down that the Board\nshall have

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

In the result, this appeal of the Assessee stands dismissed

property, to contract, and to sue or be sued in its own name, to\nexercise powers conferred on, and perform the functions assigned to it\nunder this Act.\n\n1. 3. Further, Section 24 of the Act (Relevant extract of Section 24 is\nmentioned at page 13 of the BOCW Act, 1996) lays down that the Board\nshall have

DCIT, C-1 (E), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S IMPROVEMENT TRUST, PATIALA

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue for the Assessment years 2013-14 and 2015-16 are dismissed and appeal pertaining to the Assessment year 2014-15 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

properties on commercial lines) has become the predominant activity to the detriment of the main mandate of the improvement Trusts namely town improvement. vii. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law in not taking into account the amendment brought in section 2(15) w.e.f. 01.04.2016 which expressly bars exemptions

DCIT, (E), C-1, CHANDIGARH vs. THE PATIALA IMPROVEMENT TRUST, PATIALA

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue for the Assessment years 2013-14 and 2015-16 are dismissed and appeal pertaining to the Assessment year 2014-15 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

properties on commercial lines) has become the predominant activity to the detriment of the main mandate of the improvement Trusts namely town improvement. vii. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law in not taking into account the amendment brought in section 2(15) w.e.f. 01.04.2016 which expressly bars exemptions

JCIT (OSD), (EXEMPTIONS), C-1, CHANDIGARH vs. PATIALA IMPROVEMENT TRUST, PATIALA

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue for the Assessment years 2013-14 and 2015-16 are dismissed and appeal pertaining to the Assessment year 2014-15 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

properties on commercial lines) has become the predominant activity to the detriment of the main mandate of the improvement Trusts namely town improvement. vii. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law in not taking into account the amendment brought in section 2(15) w.e.f. 01.04.2016 which expressly bars exemptions

DCIT, C-1 (EXPEMTION), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S IMPROVEMENT TRUST HOSHIARPUR, HOSHIARPUR

The appeals of the Revenue are hereby dismissed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15

properties on commercial lines) has become the predominant activity to the detriment of the main mandate of the improvement Trusts namely town improvement. 7. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law in ignoring the intention and purpose behind the omission of section 10(20A) w.e.f. 04.04.2003 which earlier has expressly

DCIT, C-1 (EXEMPTION), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S IMPROVEMENT TRUST KARTARPUR, KARTARPUR

The appeals of the Revenue are hereby dismissed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15

properties on commercial lines) has become the predominant activity to the detriment of the main mandate of the improvement Trusts namely town improvement. 7. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law in ignoring the intention and purpose behind the omission of section 10(20A) w.e.f. 04.04.2003 which earlier has expressly

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

In the result appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sanjay Gargthe Ito Vs. Smt. Seema Bishnoi Ward-4, Panchkula H.No. 906, Sec-08, Panchkula

15 min (3-15), with Boundary Wall, Tube-Well , Electric connection and Build-Up Farm house thereon, situated at village Jonapur, Tehsil Mehrauli, New Delhi with all right of ownership, possession privileges, easements and appurtenances attached thereto, for a total sale consideration of Rs. 59,50,00,000/-(Rupees Fifty Nine Crores Fifty Lacs Only)." Further in recital

M/S PAGRO FROZEN FOODS PVT. LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO, W-2(3), CHANDIGARH

The appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

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

property generated as result of the project will be owned wholly by Ministry of Food Processing Industries. Moving further the Ld. DR placed heavy reliance on endorsement in the letter at Serial No. 1 where copy of the letter was forwarded to “ The Director M/s Pagro Frozen Foods Private Limited, House No. 1763, Phase III-B2, Mohali, Punjab

SH. MAHESH CHUGH,CHANDIGARH vs. PR.CIT-2, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

10,15,000/- on construction/renovation of the said house and claimed total deduction under section 54 of the Act amounting to Rs. 2,11,94,658/- (Rs. 1,55,00,000/- + 56,94,658/-). 3. That the total eligible to claim deduction under section 54(1 )(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 comes

DCIT, C-,1 (E), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S PUNJAB MEDICAL FOUNDATION CHARITABLE TRUST, JALANDHAR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: S/Shri N.K. Saini, Vice- & Rajpal Yadav, Vice-"नधा"रण वष"/ Asstt.Year: 2014-15 Dcit, Cir.1(Exemption) M/S.Punjab Medical Foundation Chandigarh. Vs. Charitable Trust 63-64, Waryam Nagar Cool Road, Jalandhar Pan : Aaatp 5171 B (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri Sudhir Sehal, Advocate Assessee By Revenue By : Shri Ashok K. Khana, Addl.Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 18/11/2020 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/12/2020 आदेश/O R D E R

10. Keeping in mind the above provision, let us evaluate section 11 of the Income Tax Act. A bare perusal of this section would indicate that basic condition for claiming benefit under section 11 is that income should be derived by a trust/society from the property held under the trust for charitable purpose. The trust or institution should have been

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

10. The said question has been answered by the Hon'ble High Court in the following words:- “As is clear from Sub Section (4) in the event of the assessee not investing the capital gains either in purchasing the residential house or in constructing a residential house within the period stipulated in Section 54 F(1), if the assessee wants

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

Section Therefore, the view taken by the Tribunal is not correct. Hence, we answer the question in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. Accordingly, in view of the facts of the case, and the findings of the Hon'ble ITAT in the case reproduced supra, it is held that the case under consideration is of construction of house

SMT. SHANKRI DEVI,PANCHKULA vs. ACIT, PANCKULA CIRCLE, 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

BALBIR KUMAR HUF,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO , CHANDIGARH

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

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

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