M/S HARBHAJAN SINGH & CO.,SANGRUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE, SANGRUR

Appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

house property. Likewise, a company may have income from other sources . . . The company may also, as in that case, keep the surplus funds in short-term deposits in order to earn interest. Such interest will be chargeable under section 56 of the Income-tax Act'. This court also emphasised the fact that the company was not bound to utilise

M/S CHANDIGARH BOTTLING CO.,CHANDIGARH vs. ACIT, CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Diva Singh & Dr.B.R.R.Kumar & Assessment Year: 2006-07

249 ITR 214, wherein it has been held that registered deed is not a prerequisite for ownership with reference to section 32(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 13 Respectfully following the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court, I hold that transfer of land & building to Sh. Jaspal Singh during the year under appeal was sold and the Assessing

KAKA SINGH ALIAS GULJAR SINGH,PATIALA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , PATIALA

section 57.\nThe said provision reads thus:\n\"57. Deductions.-The income chargeable under the head 'Income from other\nsources' shall be computed after making the following deductions, namely :.\n(iv) in the case of income of the nature referred to in clause (viii) of sub-\nsection (2) of section 56, a deduction of a sum equal to fifty

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

SHRI ISHWAR HARI CHARITABLE TRUST,SNAGRUR vs. CIT EXEMPTIONS, CHANDIGARH

249 of Income Tax Act, which provides powers to the\nld. Commissioner to condone the delay in filing the appeal\nbefore the Commissioner. Similarly, it has been used in section\n5 of Indian Limitation Act, 1963. Whenever interpretation and\nconstruction of this expression has fallen for consideration\nbefore Hon'ble High Court as well as before the Hon'ble\nSupreme

SHRI ISHWAR HARI CHARITABLE TRUST,SANGRUR vs. CIT EXEMPTIONS, CHANDIGARH

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahay

249 of Income Tax Act, which provides powers to the ld. Commissioner to condone the delay in filing the appeal before the Commissioner. Similarly, it has been used in section 5 of Indian Limitation Act, 1963. Whenever interpretation and construction of this expression has fallen for consideration before Hon’ble High Court as well as before the Hon’ble Supreme

SH. SATNAM SINGH,MOHALI vs. ITO, WARD 6(1), MOHALI

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Krinwant Sahay

house property, capital gains and income from other sources. According to the Assessing Officer the sources of deposits i.e. by way of cash and cheque amounting to Rs. 1,55,05,595/- remained unexplained and accordingly proceedings u/s 147 of the Act were initiated by issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act. Consequent to the above reasons, notice

SH. SATNAM SINGH,MOHALI vs. ITO, WARD 6(4), MOHALI

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Krinwant Sahay

house property, capital gains and income from other sources. According to the Assessing Officer the sources of deposits i.e. by way of cash and cheque amounting to Rs. 1,55,05,595/- remained unexplained and accordingly proceedings u/s 147 of the Act were initiated by issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act. Consequent to the above reasons, notice

BISHAN CHAND,CHANDIGARH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 5 (5), CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

section 56, a deduction of a sum equal to fifty per cent. of such\nincome and no deduction shall be allowed under any other clause of this\nsection.\"\n21. The Assessing Officer in I. T. A. No. 132 of 2018 where the assessee had\nreceived Rs.11,30,561 as interest income, held that the interest payment\nreceived on compensation/enhanced compensation

HARMALA,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO, WARD 1(1), NANGAL

Section 16 or Section 17 of the Act. We, therefore, hold that the\nstatutory interest paid under Section 34 of the Act is interest paid for the\ndelayed payment of the compensation amount and, therefore, is a revenue\nreceipt liable to tax under the Income Tax Act.\"\n9. This position of law has been consistently reiterated by this Court

SAT PAL,CHANDIGARH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 5(5), , CHANDIGARH

section 2(24)\n28A, as under:\n(iii) agricultural land55 in India, not being land situate-\n(a) in any area which is comprised within the jurisdiction of a\nmunicipality55 (whether known as a municipality, municipal\ncorporation, notified area committee, town area committee, town\ncommittee, or by any other name) or a cantonment board and\nwhich has a population56

BALJEET KAUR,NADI MOHALLA AMBALA CITY vs. ITO WARD 1, AMBALA, AMBALA

section 2(24)\n28A, as under:\n(iii) agricultural land55 in India, not being land situate-\n(a) in any area which is comprised within the jurisdiction of a\nmunicipality55 (whether known as a municipality, municipal\ncorporation, notified area committee, town area committee, town\ncommittee, or by any other name) or a cantonment board and\nwhich has a population56

ANJU,MOHALI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 6 (1) , MOHALI

section 2(24)\n28A, as under:\n(iii) agricultural land55 in India, not being land situate-\n(a) in any area which is comprised within the jurisdiction of a\nmunicipality55 (whether known as a municipality, municipal\ncorporation, notified area committee, town area committee, town\ncommittee, or by any other name) or a cantonment board and\nwhich has a population56

SAMAY SINGH,YAMUNANAGAR vs. ITO-WARD (5), YAMUNANAGAR

section 2(24)\n28A, as under:\n(iii) agricultural land55 in India, not being land situate-\n(a) in any area which is comprised within the jurisdiction of a\nmunicipality55 (whether known as a municipality, municipal\ncorporation, notified area committee, town area committee, town\ncommittee, or by any other name) or a cantonment board and\nwhich has a population56

AMRINDER SINGH KHUBBER,AMBALA vs. ITO, W-5, AMBALA

section 2(24)\n28A, as under:\n(iii) agricultural land55 in India, not being land situate-\n(a) in any area which is comprised within the jurisdiction of a\nmunicipality55 (whether known as a municipality, municipal\ncorporation, notified area committee, town area committee, town\ncommittee, or by any other name) or a cantonment board and\nwhich has a population56

M/S YOGRAJ CHAUDHARY,YAMUNA NAGAR vs. ITO, WARD-5, YAMUNA NAGAR

section 1048 [or by an electoral trust]].\nExplanation. For the purposes of this sub-clause, \"trust\" includes any other\nlegal obligation ;)\n(iii) the value of any perquisite or profit in lieu of salary taxable under clauses (2)\nand (3) of section 17;\n42[(iiia) any special allowance or benefit, other than perquisite included under sub-\nclause (iii), specifically granted

SH. AJIT SINGH,PINJORE vs. ITO, WARD-1, PANCHKULA

section 56, a deduction of a sum equal to fifty per cent. of such\nincome and no deduction shall be allowed under any other clause of this\nsection.\"\n21. The Assessing Officer in I. T. A. No. 132 of 2018 where the assessee had\nreceived Rs.11,30,561 as interest income, held that the interest payment\nreceived on compensation/enhanced compensation

ACIT, CHANDIGARH vs. M/S SUKHAM INFRASTRUCTURE P. LTD., CHANDIGARH

Appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year : 2012-13

section 194 C of the Act, we deem it proper to go through the contents of the agreement, copy of which has been placed on the file, contents of which are reproduced as under: ITA Nos. 638/Chd/2015 & 249 & 250/Chd/2015-- Sh. Sukham Infrastructure (P) Ltd., Chandigarh 8 “AGREEMENT Memorandum of Agreement made this 11" day of October 2006 between

ACIT, CHANDIGARH vs. M/S SUKHAM INFRASTRUCTURE P. LTD., CHANDIGARH

Appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year : 2012-13

section 194 C of the Act, we deem it proper to go through the contents of the agreement, copy of which has been placed on the file, contents of which are reproduced as under: ITA Nos. 638/Chd/2015 & 249 & 250/Chd/2015-- Sh. Sukham Infrastructure (P) Ltd., Chandigarh 8 “AGREEMENT Memorandum of Agreement made this 11" day of October 2006 between