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

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Shri B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2008-09

Housing Development Company Limited (THDC) and so 'transfer' for the purposes of section 2(47)(v) of the Income Tax Act 1961 read with Section 2(47)(ii), 2(47)((vi) Explanation below Section 2(47) and Section 269UA had taken place? 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case

SH. JAI RAM,JAGADHARI vs. ITO, YAMUNANAGAR

In the result, both the appeal of different assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

269 ITR 288 (Raj.) and Anusandhan Investment Ltd. Vs. ITO [2010] 40 SOT 205 (Mum.). On perusal of these judgments, it is noticed that the facts on these cases are distinguishable from the facts of the instant case. In the case of Roop Singh (supra), Smt. Burfi (supra), A.R. Dahiya (supra), the issues relate to taxability of interest on enhanced

SH. AMAR SINGH,JAGADHARI vs. ITO, YAMUNANAGAR

In the result, both the appeal of different assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

269 ITR 288 (Raj.) and Anusandhan Investment Ltd. Vs. ITO [2010] 40 SOT 205 (Mum.). On perusal of these judgments, it is noticed that the facts on these cases are distinguishable from the facts of the instant case. In the case of Roop Singh (supra), Smt. Burfi (supra), A.R. Dahiya (supra), the issues relate to taxability of interest on enhanced

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

269 Difference : 67,710 (assessee may correct the figure) (B) Investment in resl. Property (3113) taken at Rs. 2,17,35,000 (without renovation claim of 10,15,000) Deduction eligibility : 2,17,35,000x2,04,51,233/2,51,25,000=1,76,91,842 Difference between

M/S AJAY KUMAR SOOD ENGINEERS & CONTRACTORS,SHIMLA vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

The appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

269/- as unexplained expenditure. Grounds of appeal in ITA No.325/Chd/2014 for A.Y. 2011-12: 1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred by upholding the Ld. DCIT/’s order which is contrary to law and the facts of the case; 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred by upholding the Ld. DCIT/’s order dt. 28/03/2013 which seems to has been

SH. AJAY GOEL,SHIMLA vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

The appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

269/- as unexplained expenditure. Grounds of appeal in ITA No.325/Chd/2014 for A.Y. 2011-12: 1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred by upholding the Ld. DCIT/’s order which is contrary to law and the facts of the case; 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred by upholding the Ld. DCIT/’s order dt. 28/03/2013 which seems to has been

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. M/S AJAY KUMAR SOOD ENGINEERS AND CONTRACTORS, SHIMLA

The appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

269/- as unexplained expenditure. Grounds of appeal in ITA No.325/Chd/2014 for A.Y. 2011-12: 1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred by upholding the Ld. DCIT/’s order which is contrary to law and the facts of the case; 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred by upholding the Ld. DCIT/’s order dt. 28/03/2013 which seems to has been

M/S AJAY KUMAR SOOD ENGINEERS & CONTRACTORS,SHIMLA vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

The appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

269/- as unexplained expenditure. Grounds of appeal in ITA No.325/Chd/2014 for A.Y. 2011-12: 1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred by upholding the Ld. DCIT/’s order which is contrary to law and the facts of the case; 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred by upholding the Ld. DCIT/’s order dt. 28/03/2013 which seems to has been

M/S AJAY KUMAR SOOD ENGINEERS & CONTRACTORS,SHIMLA vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

The appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

269/- as unexplained expenditure. Grounds of appeal in ITA No.325/Chd/2014 for A.Y. 2011-12: 1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred by upholding the Ld. DCIT/’s order which is contrary to law and the facts of the case; 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred by upholding the Ld. DCIT/’s order dt. 28/03/2013 which seems to has been

M/S AJAY KUMAR SOOD ENGINEERS & CONTRACTORS,SHIMLA vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

The appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

269/- as unexplained expenditure. Grounds of appeal in ITA No.325/Chd/2014 for A.Y. 2011-12: 1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred by upholding the Ld. DCIT/’s order which is contrary to law and the facts of the case; 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred by upholding the Ld. DCIT/’s order dt. 28/03/2013 which seems to has been

M/S AJAY KUMAR SOOD ENGINEERS & CONTRACTORS,SHIMLA vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

The appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

269/- as unexplained expenditure. Grounds of appeal in ITA No.325/Chd/2014 for A.Y. 2011-12: 1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred by upholding the Ld. DCIT/’s order which is contrary to law and the facts of the case; 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred by upholding the Ld. DCIT/’s order dt. 28/03/2013 which seems to has been

M/S AJAY KUMAR SOOD ENGINEERS & CONTRACTORS,SHIMLA vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

The appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

269/- as unexplained expenditure. Grounds of appeal in ITA No.325/Chd/2014 for A.Y. 2011-12: 1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred by upholding the Ld. DCIT/’s order which is contrary to law and the facts of the case; 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred by upholding the Ld. DCIT/’s order dt. 28/03/2013 which seems to has been

M/S ASHA TECHNOLOGIES,SIRMOUR vs. ADDL. CIT, SOLAN

In the result, both the above appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed as aforesaid in respect of impugned orders dt

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

section 40A(3) of Income Tax Act 1961 .Therefore, this amount of Rs 1,23,299/- is added back to the income of the assessee being unexplained cash credit since the same are not reflected in assessee's regular books of accounts on those relevant dates.. Since the above transaction also violated the provisions of section

M/S ASHA TECHNOLOGIES,KALA AMB vs. ITO, SIRMOUR

In the result, both the above appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed as aforesaid in respect of impugned orders dt

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

section 40A(3) of Income Tax Act 1961 .Therefore, this amount of Rs 1,23,299/- is added back to the income of the assessee being unexplained cash credit since the same are not reflected in assessee's regular books of accounts on those relevant dates.. Since the above transaction also violated the provisions of section