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

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

house property”. Thereafter, the AO analyze the provisions of Article 12 of Indo-UK DTAA as well as definition of interest as per Section 2(28A) of the Act and has held that the money paid by the assessee to M/s Omaxe Ltd. is a capital investment for purchase of the property, the assessee will get back the capital asset

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

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

house property”. Thereafter, the AO analyze the provisions of Article 12 of Indo-UK DTAA as well as definition of interest as per Section 2(28A) of the Act and has held that the money paid by the assessee to M/s Omaxe Ltd. is a capital investment for purchase of the property, the assessee will get back the capital asset

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

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

house property”. Thereafter, the AO analyze the provisions of Article 12 of Indo-UK DTAA as well as definition of interest as per Section 2(28A) of the Act and has held that the money paid by the assessee to M/s Omaxe Ltd. is a capital investment for purchase of the property, the assessee will get back the capital asset

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

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

house property”. Thereafter, the AO analyze the provisions of Article 12 of Indo-UK DTAA as well as definition of interest as per Section 2(28A) of the Act and has held that the money paid by the assessee to M/s Omaxe Ltd. is a capital investment for purchase of the property, the assessee will get back the capital asset

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

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

house property”. Thereafter, the AO analyze the provisions of Article 12 of Indo-UK DTAA as well as definition of interest as per Section 2(28A) of the Act and has held that the money paid by the assessee to M/s Omaxe Ltd. is a capital investment for purchase of the property, the assessee will get back the capital asset

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

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

house property”. Thereafter, the AO analyze the provisions of Article 12 of Indo-UK DTAA as well as definition of interest as per Section 2(28A) of the Act and has held that the money paid by the assessee to M/s Omaxe Ltd. is a capital investment for purchase of the property, the assessee will get back the capital asset

DEVI DAYAL,KAITHAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 , KAITHAL

In the result, appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 899/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09 Shri Devi Dayal, Vs The Ito, Pundri Anaj Mandi, Ward – 1, Kaithal-Haryana 136026. Kaithal. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aajpd5851H अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, Ca & Ms. Shruti Khandelwal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Manav Bansal, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 30.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.09.2025

256 of the Income Tax Act. 8.1 A perusal of the record would indicate that assessee was co-owner in agricultural land measuring 24 kanal 9 marla situated in the revenue asset of village Jagadhari, Tehsil and District – Yamuna Nagar, Haryana. The assessee has 1/6th A.Y.2008-09 7 share in the land in dispute. The assessee alongwith co-owner had entered

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

1) of the Income Tax Act. Further, the reliance placed by the Assessing officer on the judgment of Honorable Delhi High Court in the case of Gulshan Malik (supra) is not relevant to the facts of the case under appeal, since the issue involved in the case 1449-Chd-2019 Vinod Sharma, New Delhi 11 of Gulshan Malik (supra

HARYANA BUILDING AND OTHER CONSTRUCTION WORKERS WELFARE BOARD,PANCHKULA vs. DCIT, EXEMPTION, SECTOR 17

In the result, this appeal of the Assessee stands dismissed

houses.\n(c ). Funding group insurance schemes.\n(d). Providing financial assistance for education of children of\nworkers.\n(e). Meeting medical expenses for treatment of major ailments.\n(f). Making payments of maternity benefits.\n(g). Administering any other welfare measures may be prescribed\nby the State Government.\nEach of these functions is inherently welfare-oriented, targeted towards

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

In the result, this appeal of the Assessee stands dismissed

houses.\n(c ). Funding group insurance schemes.\n(d). Providing financial assistance for education of children of\nworkers.\n(e). Meeting medical expenses for treatment of major ailments.\n(f). Making payments of maternity benefits.\n(g). Administering any other welfare measures may be prescribed\nby the State Government.\nEach of these functions is inherently welfare-oriented, targeted towards

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

In the result, this appeal of the Assessee stands dismissed

houses.\n(c ). Funding group insurance schemes.\n(d). Providing financial assistance for education of children of\nworkers.\n(e). Meeting medical expenses for treatment of major ailments.\n(f). Making payments of maternity benefits.\n(g). Administering any other welfare measures may be prescribed\nby the State Government.\n\nEach of these functions is inherently welfare-oriented, targeted towards

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

In the result, this appeal of the Assessee stands dismissed

houses.\n(c ). Funding group insurance schemes.\n(d). Providing financial assistance for education of children of\nworkers.\n(e). Meeting medical expenses for treatment of major ailments.\n(f). Making payments of maternity benefits.\n(g). Administering any other welfare measures may be prescribed\nby the State Government.\n\nEach of these functions is inherently welfare-oriented, targeted towards

JAGMOHAN KAUR BAJWA LEGAL HEIR OF LT.JASKIRAN SINGH BAJWA,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO, W-3(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the Legal heir of the deceased assessee is allowed

Bench: The Date Of Hearing Of Appeal.

1. It is clear from the aforementioned submission that though there were two lenders as per the records, the total funds transferred were clearly belonging to Mr. Hardev Singh and a part of them were merely wired through his son's bank account. Therefore, in this case the credit worthiness of Mr. Hardev Singh is required to be established since

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

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

256 ITR 134 (Bom) v) Babulal C Borana V ITO 282 ITR 251 (Bom) vi) CIT Vs M.K.Brothers 163 ITR 249 (Guj) vii) CIT V Nangalia Fabrics (P) Ltd. 220 taxman 17 (Guj) viii) CIT V Famish Enterprises 276 CTR 89 (Cal) ix) CIT V Precious Jewels Corporation 205 taxman 22 (Raj( (MAG) x) E-land International P.Ltd. V DCIT

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

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

256 ITR 134 (Bom) v) Babulal C Borana V ITO 282 ITR 251 (Bom) vi) CIT Vs M.K.Brothers 163 ITR 249 (Guj) vii) CIT V Nangalia Fabrics (P) Ltd. 220 taxman 17 (Guj) viii) CIT V Famish Enterprises 276 CTR 89 (Cal) ix) CIT V Precious Jewels Corporation 205 taxman 22 (Raj( (MAG) x) E-land International P.Ltd. V DCIT

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

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

256 ITR 134 (Bom) v) Babulal C Borana V ITO 282 ITR 251 (Bom) vi) CIT Vs M.K.Brothers 163 ITR 249 (Guj) vii) CIT V Nangalia Fabrics (P) Ltd. 220 taxman 17 (Guj) viii) CIT V Famish Enterprises 276 CTR 89 (Cal) ix) CIT V Precious Jewels Corporation 205 taxman 22 (Raj( (MAG) x) E-land International P.Ltd. V DCIT