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

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

House Property while passing the order u/s 263. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee gave a detailed response to the show cause notice demonstrating that the AO had conducted adequate enquiries on the issue of Long Term Capital Gain, exemption u/s 10(36) of the Act, deduction u/s 57 of the Act as well as on unsecured loans

TARLOCHAN SINGH ,BHAWANIGARH vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, PATIALA

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

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

313 Bombay High Court held that, "where the purchase transaction is recorded in regular books of accounts and the identity of vendor is disclosed, the amount cannot be included as unexplained investment u/ 69 of Income Tax Act 1961." That the Assessing Officer wrongly stress on the word as "unrecorded and unexplained" capital introduced. The amount was duly recorded

M/S SATWANT AGRO ENGINEERS,BHAWANIGARH vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, PATIALA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

house property, profits and gains of business or profession, or capital gains, nor is it income from "other sources" because the provisions of sections 69,69A, 69B and 69C treat unexplained investment, unexplained money, bullion, etc., and unexplained expenditure as deemed income where the nature and source of investment, acquisition or expenditure, as the case may be, have not been

SH. SHEO RAM,JAGADHARI vs. ITO, YAMUNANAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly

Bench: Ms.Diva Singh & Ms.Annapurna Guptash. Sheo Ram, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Village Jaroda, Ward 3, Jagadhari. Yamunanagar. Pan: Fhcps9095D (Appellant) (Respondent)

313/- to one M/s Jewel Projects Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi on 20.3.2007. Since the land was a capital asset, falling within 8 km. of the municipal limit, the capital gain on such sale was taxable and, therefore, the Assessing Officer issued notice u/s 148 of the Act for taxing the capital gain earned by the assessee on the impugned transaction

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

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

section 13(1)(c) is to judge the reasonableness of the payments made to the members of the society and secondly and more importantly, there is no finding of the AO that the society is not working towards the objects of education etc. as defined in its Memorandum and Rules and Regulations. No case of siphoning off of the funds

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

section 13(1)(c) is to judge the reasonableness of the payments made to the members of the society and secondly and more importantly, there is no finding of the AO that the society is not working towards the objects of education etc. as defined in its Memorandum and Rules and Regulations. No case of siphoning off of the funds

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

section 13(1)(c) is to judge the reasonableness of the payments made to the members of the society and secondly and more importantly, there is no finding of the AO that the society is not working towards the objects of education etc. as defined in its Memorandum and Rules and Regulations. No case of siphoning off of the funds

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

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

section 13(1)(c) is to judge the reasonableness of the payments made to the members of the society and secondly and more importantly, there is no finding of the AO that the society is not working towards the objects of education etc. as defined in its Memorandum and Rules and Regulations. No case of siphoning off of the funds

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

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

section 13(1)(c) is to judge the reasonableness of the payments made to the members of the society and secondly and more importantly, there is no finding of the AO that the society is not working towards the objects of education etc. as defined in its Memorandum and Rules and Regulations. No case of siphoning off of the funds

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

section 13(1)(c) is to judge the reasonableness of the payments made to the members of the society and secondly and more importantly, there is no finding of the AO that the society is not working towards the objects of education etc. as defined in its Memorandum and Rules and Regulations. No case of siphoning off of the funds

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

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

section 13(1)(c) is to judge the reasonableness of the payments made to the members of the society and secondly and more importantly, there is no finding of the AO that the society is not working towards the objects of education etc. as defined in its Memorandum and Rules and Regulations. No case of siphoning off of the funds

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

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

section 13(1)(c) is to judge the reasonableness of the payments made to the members of the society and secondly and more importantly, there is no finding of the AO that the society is not working towards the objects of education etc. as defined in its Memorandum and Rules and Regulations. No case of siphoning off of the funds

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

house run by the assessee showing receipts of Rs. 1,61,500/- for the period of 06/06/2009 to 02/08/2009. The Assessing Officer has extrapolated this amount for the entire year to Rs. 6,40,000/- based on the decision of ITAT Hyderabad which held that where a regular pattern of suppression is established the lawful presumption is that there

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

house run by the assessee showing receipts of Rs. 1,61,500/- for the period of 06/06/2009 to 02/08/2009. The Assessing Officer has extrapolated this amount for the entire year to Rs. 6,40,000/- based on the decision of ITAT Hyderabad which held that where a regular pattern of suppression is established the lawful presumption is that there

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

house run by the assessee showing receipts of Rs. 1,61,500/- for the period of 06/06/2009 to 02/08/2009. The Assessing Officer has extrapolated this amount for the entire year to Rs. 6,40,000/- based on the decision of ITAT Hyderabad which held that where a regular pattern of suppression is established the lawful presumption is that there

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

house run by the assessee showing receipts of Rs. 1,61,500/- for the period of 06/06/2009 to 02/08/2009. The Assessing Officer has extrapolated this amount for the entire year to Rs. 6,40,000/- based on the decision of ITAT Hyderabad which held that where a regular pattern of suppression is established the lawful presumption is that there

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

house run by the assessee showing receipts of Rs. 1,61,500/- for the period of 06/06/2009 to 02/08/2009. The Assessing Officer has extrapolated this amount for the entire year to Rs. 6,40,000/- based on the decision of ITAT Hyderabad which held that where a regular pattern of suppression is established the lawful presumption is that there

SH. AJAY GOEL,SHIMLA vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

The appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

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

house run by the assessee showing receipts of Rs. 1,61,500/- for the period of 06/06/2009 to 02/08/2009. The Assessing Officer has extrapolated this amount for the entire year to Rs. 6,40,000/- based on the decision of ITAT Hyderabad which held that where a regular pattern of suppression is established the lawful presumption is that there