DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, LUDHIANA , LUDHIANA vs. HOMELIFE BUILDCON PVT. LTD., LUDHIANA

In the result, Revenue appeal is dismissed and appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 880/Chd/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2021-22 Homelife Buildcon Private Limited Sunview Enclave, Ayali Kalan, Ludhiana, Punjab-142027 स्थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AABCH5690M अपीलार्थी/Appellant The DCIT Central Circle-1 Ludhiana, Punjab प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 1036/Chd/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2021-22 Homelife Buildcon Private Limited Sunview Enclave, Ayali Kalan, Lu

properties sold by it and hence, reducing its turnover? 3. Whether upon facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A)justified in relying on judgment of hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of VM Spinning Mills reported in (2011) 16 taxmann.com 199 to deny the benefit of extrapolation as the facts

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

In the result appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sanjay Gargthe Ito Vs. Smt. Seema Bishnoi Ward-4, Panchkula H.No. 906, Sec-08, Panchkula

section 54F as under: i. Assessee has invested the capital gains in purchase of a residential house within a period of one year before or two years from the date of sale of the original asset; or has within a period of three years constructed one residential house. ii. the assessee does not own more than one other house property

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

S.P. SINGLA CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH (Vice President), SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

House No.202, GH-68, Sector 20, Panchkula. The AO further noted that the Sub Contractor firms have been used by assessee company to book bogus expenses to bring down its overall profit. The DDIT (Investigation) passed on the information to the AO of the assessee i.e. DCIT Circle-22 New Delhi and DCIT Circle 22 New Delhi after verifying

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

section 54 of the Act, an assessee is required to construct a residential house within 3 years from the date of sale of the property

CHANDIGARH EDUCATIONAL TRUST,MOHALI vs. PR.CIT-CENTRAL,GURGAON, AT CHANDIGARH

property of the trust for direct or indirect benefit to the persons mentioned u/s 13(3) of the Act. 5.9 Ld. Pr. CIT was of the view that conspectus of decisions on the subject provides that at the time of granting registration under section 12AA(1) of the Act, only the objects and purposes are required to be seen

SHRI GURU RAM DASS EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,MOHALI vs. PR.CIT(CENTRAL) GURGAON, AT CHANDIGARH

property of the trust for direct or indirect benefit to the persons mentioned u/s 13(3) of the Act. 5.9 Ld. Pr. CIT was of the view that conspectus of decisions on the subject provides that at the time of granting registration under section 12AA(1) of the Act, only the objects and purposes are required to be seen

CHANDIGARH EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,MOHALI vs. PR.CIT(CENTRAL)-GURGAON, AT CHANDIGARH

property of the trust for direct or indirect benefit to the persons mentioned u/s 13(3) of the Act. 5.9 Ld. Pr. CIT was of the view that conspectus of decisions on the subject provides that at the time of granting registration under section 12AA(1) of the Act, only the objects and purposes are required to be seen

SMT. URMILA GARG,SANGRUR vs. ITO, WARD, SANGRUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee’s are allowed

House Property, Capital Gain and other sources residing at C/o Sangrur Surgical and Laparoscopic Centre, Haripura Road, Sangrur. The appellant filed his return of income on dtd. 30/11/2015, declaring income of Rs. 1,59,87,590/- for the assessment year 2015-16 and paid total tax and interest of Rs. 37,78,150/- The return was processed

SHRI SATISH KUMAR,SANGRUR vs. ITO, WARD, SANGRUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee’s are allowed

House Property, Capital Gain and other sources residing at C/o Sangrur Surgical and Laparoscopic Centre, Haripura Road, Sangrur. The appellant filed his return of income on dtd. 30/11/2015, declaring income of Rs. 1,59,87,590/- for the assessment year 2015-16 and paid total tax and interest of Rs. 37,78,150/- The return was processed

M/S CHANDIGARH LAWN TENNIS ASSOCIATION,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO (EXEMPTIONS), CHANDIGARH

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptaassessment Year : 2013-14 Chandigarh Lawn Tennis Vs. The Ito (Exemptions), Association, Ward, Chandigarh Sector 10, Chandigarh Pan No. Aaatc4943J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sh. Y.K. Sud, Ca Respondent By : Smt. Chanderkanta, Addl. Cit (On 22.3.2018) & Sh.Yoginder Mittal, Sr. Dr (On 13.7.2018) Date Of Hearing : 22.03.2018 & 13.7.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.07.2018

section 2(15) there is a paradigm shift from the earlier position. Though, some of the decisions of the Delhi High Court as referred to above and that of the Pb. & Hry. High Court in the case of The Tribune Trust (supra) have been delivered subsequent to the introduction of the second proviso to section

M/S FATEH HOMES PRIVATE LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO WARD-1(4), CHANDIGARH

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

house property, which is governed by the provisions of chapter IV-C of the Act. As per the charging section 22, the annual value of the property is charged to tax, which annual value has been defined u/s 23 of the Act. The remaining sections deal with deductions from the annual value and provisions relating to arrears of rent

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

M/S MANAV MANGAL SOCIETY,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, C-1, (E), CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the department are dismissed

house, which is owned by Sarashri Sanjay Sardana and Sh. Sandeep Sardana, who are drawing salary as Principal and Director of the Society. The rent which is paid by the Society is being taken into consideration as perquisite in the hands of Sh. Sanjay Sardana and Sh. Sandeep Sardana in their income tax returns. ii. For the purpose of payment

DCIT,CIRCLE-1(EXEMPTION), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S MANAV MANGAL SCHOOL( MANAV MANGAL SOCIETY), CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the department are dismissed

house, which is owned by Sarashri Sanjay Sardana and Sh. Sandeep Sardana, who are drawing salary as Principal and Director of the Society. The rent which is paid by the Society is being taken into consideration as perquisite in the hands of Sh. Sanjay Sardana and Sh. Sandeep Sardana in their income tax returns. ii. For the purpose of payment