SHOBHA SHARMA,SIRSA vs. ITO-WARD-3, SIRSA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

house on 15.11.2011 at New Delhi from Parmod Bhatia… 4.1 The A.O. observed that the assessee had sold the residential property for sale consideration of Rs. 29,87,000/- and claimed total indexed cost of the said property at Rs. 7,99,875/-, consequently earned the Long Term Capital Gain(LTCG) of Rs. 21,87,125/- which was claimed

KANWALDEEP KAUR,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

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

125/- on account of difference in stamp duty value and total consideration paid by the appellant for purchase of immovable property. The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact that agreement to sell for the property was made in 2009 and only registered deed was executed in year 2016 due to certain legal issues As per provisions of section

INCOME TAX OFFICER, MOHALI vs. GURTEJ SINGH, MOHALI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

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

125/- on account of difference in stamp duty value and total consideration paid by the appellant for purchase of immovable property. The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact that agreement to sell for the property was made in 2009 and only registered deed was executed in year 2016 due to certain legal issues As per provisions of section

SH. RAMINDER SINGH,MOHALI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(2), MOHALI

The appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Smt.Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1270/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16

house property u/s 54 = Rs. 96,50,000/- Long Term Capital Gain = Nil. “ d. The LOIs provided by GMADA, can be cancelled at any point of time, in case of any issue found with regard to the ownership of agricultural land in lieu of which LOIs are issued. e. LOIs are not freely transferrable as in the case of land

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)

125/- was paid to the assessee on 02/02/2016. The capital gain from this transaction was reported in the ITR for AY 2016-17. 3.2 Out of the advance amount of Rs. 1,47,66,375/- received in September 2013 against his share in the sale portion of land, the assessee invested Rs. 1,35,08,500 in the purchase

LEELA DUTT SHARMA,CHANDIGARH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 5(3), CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

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

House Property" and "Income from Other Sources" but provided no details regarding the cash deposits in question. 3.1 The Ld. AO decided that the cash deposits of Rs. 62,89,450/- in the assessee’s Canara Bank account were unexplained income 3 under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act. The AO confirmed that the money belonged to the assessee

SH. SHEO RAM,JAGADHARI vs. ITO, YAMUNANAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly

Bench: Ms.Diva Singh & Ms.Annapurna Guptash. Sheo Ram, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Village Jaroda, Ward 3, Jagadhari. Yamunanagar. Pan: Fhcps9095D (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act. The Assessing Officer noted that the assessee had deposed before the Registering Authority that the possession of land had been handed over to the vendee. He, therefore, held that the claim of the assessee that there would be two different dates for effecting the transfer in the present case, was not tenable

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

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

Property Management Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT ii) 125 TT.I 428 (Del) Rajiv Agnihotri vs. CIT iii) 131 ITD 58 (Jai) Rajiv Arora vs. CIT v) 137 TTJ 67 (Pat) Ramakant Singh vs. CIT ITA 146,147 & 148/CHD/2021 A.Y. 2011-12, 2015-16 & 2016-17 59 16.6 Courts have also on to hold that proceedings

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

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

Property Management Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT ii) 125 TT.I 428 (Del) Rajiv Agnihotri vs. CIT iii) 131 ITD 58 (Jai) Rajiv Arora vs. CIT v) 137 TTJ 67 (Pat) Ramakant Singh vs. CIT ITA 146,147 & 148/CHD/2021 A.Y. 2011-12, 2015-16 & 2016-17 59 16.6 Courts have also on to hold that proceedings

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

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

Property Management Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT ii) 125 TT.I 428 (Del) Rajiv Agnihotri vs. CIT iii) 131 ITD 58 (Jai) Rajiv Arora vs. CIT v) 137 TTJ 67 (Pat) Ramakant Singh vs. CIT ITA 146,147 & 148/CHD/2021 A.Y. 2011-12, 2015-16 & 2016-17 59 16.6 Courts have also on to hold that proceedings

SHRI ABHIMANYU GUPTA,PATIALA vs. PR. CIT, PATIALA

Bench: Ms. Diva Singh & Ms. Annapurna Guptaassessment Year: 2012-13

125 to 147 which are also the supporting evidences are the details of stock; inviting attention to pages 148 of the paper book and its reply at pages 151 to 159 dt, 27/03/2017 which has been rejected by the Pr. CIT without addressing the reply resulted in the passing of the impugned order. it was submitted that all these were

BEE GEE CONSTRUCTION CO,ZIRAKPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 3(1), CHANDIGARH

The appeal stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

125 Taxmann.com 82) confirming the decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court (reported as 122 Taxmann.com 123). The adjudication of Hon’ble High Court was as under: - 4. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for parties and on perusal of order under challenge, it would clearly indicate that claim of the assessee was under section

BEE GEE CONSTRUCTION CO,ZIRAKPUR vs. ACIT, CIR-3(1), CHANDIGARH

The appeal stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

125 Taxmann.com 82) confirming the decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court (reported as 122 Taxmann.com 123). The adjudication of Hon’ble High Court was as under: - 4. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for parties and on perusal of order under challenge, it would clearly indicate that claim of the assessee was under section

HEM RAJ JAIN,LUDHIANA vs. ITO, W-1(1), LUDHIANA

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

Bench: I.T.A.T. & The Sole Issue Relates To The Computation Of Long Term Capital Gain Earned By The Assessee On Sale Of Property. Drawing Our Attention To The Facts Of The Case, As Reproduced At Para 3 Of The Cit(A)’S Order, It Was Pointed Out That The Assessment Had Been Framed On The Assessee For The Impugned Year U/S 143(3) Of The Act Making Addition On Account Of Long Term Capital

125/-. In fact, also cannot be said to be the fair market value as the assessee has himself sold property for Rs.30,00,000/-. Under such circumstances, the action of the Assessing Officer in adopting the sale consideration of the property for computing long-term capital gain at Rs.45,00,000/- in this case and thereafter computing the taxable value

SHRI GURU RAM DASS EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,MOHALI vs. PR.CIT(CENTRAL) GURGAON, AT CHANDIGARH

house at Canada in the name of Smt. Damandeep Kaur during FY 2019-20. e) Diversion of funds amounting to Rs.30,00,000/- during FY 2015-16 to Smt. Jasmail Kaur. f) Diversion of funds through accommodation entries of unsecured loan by Sh. Satnam Singh Sandhu and his partnership firms - Amount of Rs.4,90,00,000 received by Golden Infotech

CHANDIGARH EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,MOHALI vs. PR.CIT(CENTRAL)-GURGAON, AT CHANDIGARH

house at Canada in the name of Smt. Damandeep Kaur during FY 2019-20. e) Diversion of funds amounting to Rs.30,00,000/- during FY 2015-16 to Smt. Jasmail Kaur. f) Diversion of funds through accommodation entries of unsecured loan by Sh. Satnam Singh Sandhu and his partnership firms - Amount of Rs.4,90,00,000 received by Golden Infotech

CHANDIGARH EDUCATIONAL TRUST,MOHALI vs. PR.CIT-CENTRAL,GURGAON, AT CHANDIGARH

house at Canada in the name of Smt. Damandeep Kaur during FY 2019-20. e) Diversion of funds amounting to Rs.30,00,000/- during FY 2015-16 to Smt. Jasmail Kaur. f) Diversion of funds through accommodation entries of unsecured loan by Sh. Satnam Singh Sandhu and his partnership firms - Amount of Rs.4,90,00,000 received by Golden Infotech

M/S BLUE COAST INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT P. LTD.,SOLAN vs. DCIT, PARWANOO

In the result the appeal of the assessee is, hereby allowed and

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sanjay Gargआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 652/Chd/2017 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09 M/S Blue Coast Infrastructure Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Development P. Ltd., 7, Income Tax, Circle, बनाम Shopping Complex, Sector-1, Parwanoo Parwanoo, Distt. Solan, H.P.

housing project. The A.O. in this respect relied upon the clauses of agreement to sale. The AO further observed that even the assessee company could not prove with convincing evidence that agricultural operations were carried out on the said land. The AO further observed that even the said land was within 8 K.M. of the Municipal limits of Panaji