SHRI HARI & CO OWNERS,KAITHAL vs. PR. CIT, CHANDIGARH -1, ROHTAK

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

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

property. Therefore, the assessment completed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act is erroneous so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue in terms of provisions of section 263 of the Act, especially in view of Explanation 2 inserted by the Finance Act, 2015 w.e.f 01.06.2015. Accordingly, the assessment order passed

PRIYANKA,SIRSA vs. PR.CIT, ROHTAK

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.149/Chd/2021 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year :2016-17 Sh. Rajeev Goyal Pr. Commissioner Of Income बनाम M/S R.K. Associates, Tax, Rohtak B.G. Complex Near Ganesh Dharam Kanta, Sirsa -125055, Haryana "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Aibpg7289A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

house and did not arrive at the actual investment made by the assessee; d) That Assessing officer has made no enquiry in respect of property and the source of investment in purchase of property has not been quantified. ITA Nos. 149 to 152, 154 & 157-c-2021 Rajeev Goyal & others 10 e) That the Assessing officer conducted no enquiry regarding

SHRI. TARSEM GOYAL,SIRSA vs. PR.CIT, ROHTAK

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.149/Chd/2021 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year :2016-17 Sh. Rajeev Goyal Pr. Commissioner Of Income बनाम M/S R.K. Associates, Tax, Rohtak B.G. Complex Near Ganesh Dharam Kanta, Sirsa -125055, Haryana "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Aibpg7289A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

house and did not arrive at the actual investment made by the assessee; d) That Assessing officer has made no enquiry in respect of property and the source of investment in purchase of property has not been quantified. ITA Nos. 149 to 152, 154 & 157-c-2021 Rajeev Goyal & others 10 e) That the Assessing officer conducted no enquiry regarding

SHRI RAJEEV GOYAL,SIRSA vs. PR.CIT, ROHTAK

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.149/Chd/2021 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year :2016-17 Sh. Rajeev Goyal Pr. Commissioner Of Income बनाम M/S R.K. Associates, Tax, Rohtak B.G. Complex Near Ganesh Dharam Kanta, Sirsa -125055, Haryana "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Aibpg7289A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

house and did not arrive at the actual investment made by the assessee; d) That Assessing officer has made no enquiry in respect of property and the source of investment in purchase of property has not been quantified. ITA Nos. 149 to 152, 154 & 157-c-2021 Rajeev Goyal & others 10 e) That the Assessing officer conducted no enquiry regarding

PRIYA GOYAL,SIRSA vs. PR.CIT, ROHTAK

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.149/Chd/2021 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year :2016-17 Sh. Rajeev Goyal Pr. Commissioner Of Income बनाम M/S R.K. Associates, Tax, Rohtak B.G. Complex Near Ganesh Dharam Kanta, Sirsa -125055, Haryana "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Aibpg7289A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

house and did not arrive at the actual investment made by the assessee; d) That Assessing officer has made no enquiry in respect of property and the source of investment in purchase of property has not been quantified. ITA Nos. 149 to 152, 154 & 157-c-2021 Rajeev Goyal & others 10 e) That the Assessing officer conducted no enquiry regarding

SH. PARSHOTAM GOYAL,SIRSA vs. PR.CIT, ROHTAK

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.149/Chd/2021 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year :2016-17 Sh. Rajeev Goyal Pr. Commissioner Of Income बनाम M/S R.K. Associates, Tax, Rohtak B.G. Complex Near Ganesh Dharam Kanta, Sirsa -125055, Haryana "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Aibpg7289A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

house and did not arrive at the actual investment made by the assessee; d) That Assessing officer has made no enquiry in respect of property and the source of investment in purchase of property has not been quantified. ITA Nos. 149 to 152, 154 & 157-c-2021 Rajeev Goyal & others 10 e) That the Assessing officer conducted no enquiry regarding

M/S PARDEEP ISPAT(P) LTD.,SIRSA vs. PR.CIT, ROHTAK

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.149/Chd/2021 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year :2016-17 Sh. Rajeev Goyal Pr. Commissioner Of Income बनाम M/S R.K. Associates, Tax, Rohtak B.G. Complex Near Ganesh Dharam Kanta, Sirsa -125055, Haryana "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Aibpg7289A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

house and did not arrive at the actual investment made by the assessee; d) That Assessing officer has made no enquiry in respect of property and the source of investment in purchase of property has not been quantified. ITA Nos. 149 to 152, 154 & 157-c-2021 Rajeev Goyal & others 10 e) That the Assessing officer conducted no enquiry regarding

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

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. 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

TARUN JAIN,BATHINDA vs. PR.CIT(CENTRAL), LUDHIANA

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

section 68 of the Income Tax Act are against the facts and circumstances of the case. 8. That the appellant craves to add or amend the grounds of appeal. 2.1 The Ld. AR submitted that in this case the return of income was filed on 13.07.2016 along with the computation of income showing Salary Income, Income from House Property, Short

SHRI SANJAY JAIN,BATHINDA vs. PR.CIT(CENTRAL), LUDHIANA

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

section 68 of the Income Tax Act are against the facts and circumstances of the case. 8. That the appellant craves to add or amend the grounds of appeal. 2.1 The Ld. AR submitted that in this case the return of income was filed on 13.07.2016 along with the computation of income showing Salary Income, Income from House Property, Short

RAJNI JAIN,BATHINDA vs. PR.CIT(CENTRAL), LUDHIANA

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

section 68 of the Income Tax Act are against the facts and circumstances of the case. 8. That the appellant craves to add or amend the grounds of appeal. 2.1 The Ld. AR submitted that in this case the return of income was filed on 13.07.2016 along with the computation of income showing Salary Income, Income from House Property, Short

BHUPINDER SINGH SON OF SH. GURMUKH SINGH ,PUNJAB vs. THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CHANDIGARH-1, C.R BUILDING HIMALAYA MARG, SECTOR 17-E, CHANDIGARH, PUNJAB

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

section 263 of the Income Tax Act in each case of the appellant.” 12.12 Per contra, the Ld. DR has then drawn our attention to para wise remarks to the allegation made by the Ld. PCIT which are as under:- Sr. No. Relevant page Allegation of PCIT in order passed u/s Our Remarks no. of PCIT Order 263

SH. SUNIL KUMAR BATTA,PANCHKULALA vs. PR.CIT, PANCHKULA

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.47/Chd/2021 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year :2011-12

section 263 of the Act was addressed to the taxpayer at House No. 656, Sector 2, Panchkula. A perusal of the record shows that this address of Panchkula was the earlier address of the assessee and is the address of the property

MAHAKALI DEVELOPERS AND RESORTS PRIVATE LIMITED,SCF vs. PCIT PATIALA, AAYKAR BHAWAN

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahay

Section 263 dated 14.12.2023 in both the years. The reason assigned for issuing these Show Cause Notices has been reproduced in paragraph No. 2 of both the orders. According to the ld. CIT, assessee was engaged in the business of Real Estate. It has disclosed house property

SH.ASHOK KUMAR GUPTA,LUDHIANA vs. PR.CIT-1, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

property. Hence claim of deduction under section 54 of I.T. Act 1961 is not correct and also the AO has wrongly allowed the benefit of deduction u/s 54 of Income Tax Act, 1961 to ttie extent of Rs.2,05,93,405/- (3,32,39,346-1,26,43,941 )on account of modification in residential house bearing House

ADITI AGGARWAL,AMBALA CANTT vs. PR.CIT, PANCHKULA

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing Of Case.

property as per agreement to sell and the value shown in the sale deed. It was stated that the assumption of the Ld. Pr. CIT was wrong as the A.O. issued show cause notice dt. 22/11/2018, conducted inquiries from the other co-owners as well as witnesses of the alleged agreement. The assessee filed a detailed reply, copy of which