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

SMT. SUREKHA THUKRAL ,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

Appeal of the Assessee is allowed

House Property and ‘Income from Other sources’. Assessment in this case was completed on 31.01.2013 at Rs. 8,32,234/-. An addition of Rs. 3,13,000/- was made on account of unexplained cash found during the course of search. The Penalty proceedings under section 271

SHRI PARDEEP KUMAR JAIN,ZIRAKPUR vs. ITO, W-2(3), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 190/Chd/2019 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Shri Pradeep Kumar Jain, The Ito, Ward 2(3), बनाम Chandigarh Flat No.222, Orbit Apartments, 6Th Floor, Zirakpur "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Advpj6719P अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

271 (1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, that the assessee came to know about the passing of the appellate order. Thereafter, the assessee applied for certifiedof the order of the CIT(A) which was provided to him on 20.2.2019 and the appeal was filed immediately within the period of limitation. The above averments made by the assessee

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

SH. ANIL TALWAR,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-II, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

House No. 346, Sector 9, Chandigarh certain additions were made by the assessing officer. The additions were partly sustained in appeal by the CIT(A). On further appeal before the ITAT, the additions estimated by the AO and the CIT(A) to an extent were restricted to the additions proposed by the DVO in his valuation report. In the penalty

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

Section 271(1)(c) which has been confirmed by the CIT(A). 11.2. Inviting attention to the material available on record, it was submitted that the assessee has returned rental income as income from house property

SH. JAGMOHAN SINGH,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-1, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

property and to substantiate his claim of deduction under Section 54 of the Act. Thereafter, the assessee filed the necessary information/documentation which were considered by the AO but not found fully acceptable. 3. The AO reworked the LTCG at Rs. 38,65,580/-, as against capital gain of Rs. 37,22,387/- declared by the assessee, by disallowing certain cost

SH. PARMINDER SINGH MAVI,MORINDA vs. ITO, ROPAR

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

Housing Development Company Ltd. for which consideration had been settled in the form of cash as well as kind. He, therefore, held that the provisions of section 2(47)(v) of the Act r.w.s. A.Y.2008-09 53A of the transfer of Property Act were attracted on entering into the Development Agreement and the assessee had come within the purview of section

ASHISH ARORA,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

The appeals of the Assessee are allowed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2009-10

house property and appellant claimed deduction u/s 54 of the Act. The Assessing Officer has treated the income declared/ surrendered during the survey under section 133A as deemed income in view of the decision of the jurisdiction High Court in the case of Kim Pharma Pvt. Ltd. (2013) 35 Taxman and did not allow the Long Term Capital Gain computed

HITEISH ARORA,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

The appeals of the Assessee are allowed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2009-10

house property and appellant claimed deduction u/s 54 of the Act. The Assessing Officer has treated the income declared/ surrendered during the survey under section 133A as deemed income in view of the decision of the jurisdiction High Court in the case of Kim Pharma Pvt. Ltd. (2013) 35 Taxman and did not allow the Long Term Capital Gain computed

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

SH. CHARANJIT SINGH ATWAL,LUDHIANA vs. ITO, LUDHIANA

In the result, the penalty of the assessee is hereby allowed and that of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year : 2007-08 Sh. Charanjit Singh Atwal, Vs. The Ito, Ward 6(1), 484-A, Model Town Extension, Ludhiana Ludhiana

271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') whereas Revenue is aggrieved by the action of the CIT(A) in deleting the remaining part of penalty. 3. The society consisted of 95 members and was the owner of 21.2 acres, of which 500 square yards plots were held by 65 members, 1000 square yards plots

ITO, LUDHIANA vs. SH. CHARANJIT SINGH ATWAL, LUDHIANA

In the result, the penalty of the assessee is hereby allowed and that of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year : 2007-08 Sh. Charanjit Singh Atwal, Vs. The Ito, Ward 6(1), 484-A, Model Town Extension, Ludhiana Ludhiana

271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') whereas Revenue is aggrieved by the action of the CIT(A) in deleting the remaining part of penalty. 3. The society consisted of 95 members and was the owner of 21.2 acres, of which 500 square yards plots were held by 65 members, 1000 square yards plots

RAVI KAKKAR,MOHALI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Us, At The Outset, Both The Parties Submitted That The Issues Raised In Both The Appeals Were Identical. In View Of The Aforesaid

271(1)(b) of the Act. 7. Against the order of the Ld. AO the assessee went in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee by, holding that the assessee had failed to avail multiple opportunities provided during the appellate proceedings and had not submitted any written submissions to substantiate the grounds

RAVI KAKKAR,MOHALI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, MOHALI

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Us, At The Outset, Both The Parties Submitted That The Issues Raised In Both The Appeals Were Identical. In View Of The Aforesaid

271(1)(b) of the Act. 7. Against the order of the Ld. AO the assessee went in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee by, holding that the assessee had failed to avail multiple opportunities provided during the appellate proceedings and had not submitted any written submissions to substantiate the grounds