CSJ INFRASTRUCTURE PVT.LTD,CHANDIGARH vs. ACIT,CIRCLE--2(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed and that of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 131,132 /Chd/2020 "नधा"रण वष" / A.Y.: 2014-15, 2015-16, M/S Csj Infrastructure Pvt.Ltd., The Acit, C/O C.A. Ajay Kumar Jain, Vs Circle 2(1), Sco 80-81, 4Th Floor, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh. Chandigarh. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aaccc8021G अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 146, 147/Chd/2020 "नधा"रण वष" / A.Y.: 2014-15, 2015-16, The Acit, Vs M/S Csj Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Circle 2(1), C/O C.A. Ajay Kumar Jain, Chandigarh. Sco 80-81, 4Th Floor, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aaccc8021G अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ajay Jain, Ca Revenue By : Shri Manav Bansal, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 19.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.05.2025 Physical Hearing O R D E R

property may not be appropriate in this case. In view of the evidence produced by the assessee, moreover, collectorate rates available are for commercial space and not specifically for office space. ITA No.131, 132, 146,147/CHD/2020 A.Y.2014-15 & 2015-16 6 According to the DVO, the general trend available, commercial space such as shop, malls etc. are considered as compared

CSJ INFRASTRUCTURE PVT.LTD,CHANDIGARH vs. ACIT,CIRCLE--2(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed and that of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 131,132 /Chd/2020 "नधा"रण वष" / A.Y.: 2014-15, 2015-16, M/S Csj Infrastructure Pvt.Ltd., The Acit, C/O C.A. Ajay Kumar Jain, Vs Circle 2(1), Sco 80-81, 4Th Floor, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh. Chandigarh. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aaccc8021G अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 146, 147/Chd/2020 "नधा"रण वष" / A.Y.: 2014-15, 2015-16, The Acit, Vs M/S Csj Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Circle 2(1), C/O C.A. Ajay Kumar Jain, Chandigarh. Sco 80-81, 4Th Floor, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aaccc8021G अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ajay Jain, Ca Revenue By : Shri Manav Bansal, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 19.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.05.2025 Physical Hearing O R D E R

property may not be appropriate in this case. In view of the evidence produced by the assessee, moreover, collectorate rates available are for commercial space and not specifically for office space. ITA No.131, 132, 146,147/CHD/2020 A.Y.2014-15 & 2015-16 6 According to the DVO, the general trend available, commercial space such as shop, malls etc. are considered as compared

ACIT,CIRCLE--2(1), CHANDIGARH vs. CSJ INFRASTRUCTURE PVT.LTD, CHANDIGARH

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed and that of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 131,132 /Chd/2020 "नधा"रण वष" / A.Y.: 2014-15, 2015-16, M/S Csj Infrastructure Pvt.Ltd., The Acit, C/O C.A. Ajay Kumar Jain, Vs Circle 2(1), Sco 80-81, 4Th Floor, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh. Chandigarh. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aaccc8021G अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 146, 147/Chd/2020 "नधा"रण वष" / A.Y.: 2014-15, 2015-16, The Acit, Vs M/S Csj Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Circle 2(1), C/O C.A. Ajay Kumar Jain, Chandigarh. Sco 80-81, 4Th Floor, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aaccc8021G अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ajay Jain, Ca Revenue By : Shri Manav Bansal, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 19.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.05.2025 Physical Hearing O R D E R

property may not be appropriate in this case. In view of the evidence produced by the assessee, moreover, collectorate rates available are for commercial space and not specifically for office space. ITA No.131, 132, 146,147/CHD/2020 A.Y.2014-15 & 2015-16 6 According to the DVO, the general trend available, commercial space such as shop, malls etc. are considered as compared

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

36,650/- u/s 54B & 54F invested subsequent to the receipt of money against sale of agriculture land. 3. That learned CIT (Appeals) has erred in law and facts in adopting indexed cost of land valued on the basis of land value on 1-4-1981 at Rs. 3,58,321/-. 4. That learned CIT (Appeals) has erred

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

36,650/- u/s 54B & 54F invested subsequent to the receipt of money against sale of agriculture land. 3. That learned CIT (Appeals) has erred in law and facts in adopting indexed cost of land valued on the basis of land value on 1-4-1981 at Rs. 3,58,321/-. 4. That learned CIT (Appeals) has erred

JANTA LAND PROMOTERS PRIVATE LIMITED ,MOHALI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 6(1) CHANDIGARH , MOHALI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 907/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 बनाम M/S Janta Land Promoters Pvt.Ltd. The Ito, Sco 39-42, Sector 82, Ward 6(1), Vs Mohali. Chandigarh. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan /Tan No: Aabcj3450D अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Pankaj Bhalla, Ca राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. Cit, Sr.Dr तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 07.05.2025 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30.07.2025

36(1)(va) of the Act with regard to the, (a) Employees’ contribution not paid before the due date provided under PF & ESI acts, and (b) the ld. CIT (Appeals) has erred in confirming the addition of notional rental inventory of flats. 4. The ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that as far as addition of not depositing employees’ contribution

SANJEEV KUMAR KATHURIA,YAMUNA NAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 , YAMUNANAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

house on independent plot in posh area. 15. The Ld. AR further submitted that PCIT has placed reliance on gift deed dated 8/10/2009 executed in favour of the assessee by his father. Stamp duty is charged on minimum collector for stamp duty purposes and it cannot reflect FMV as on 1-4-2001. The collector value is always fixed

PUNJAB STATE COOP. BANK LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. ACIT, CL-2(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result the impugned order of Ld

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

house property. The main business of the assessee society includes lending of money to earn interest thereon from the various banks, institutions, investment in Government securities and other various deposits including investment in bonds and debentures of various societies as well as interest earned on its advances to the various members, member cooperatives including cooperative societies. 5. That while completing

M/S FATEH RESORTS PVT.LTD,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO WARD-1(4), CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed to the above

36, it was agreed that the very same reasons have been considered in para 4 and 5 by the ITAT in the aforesaid order wherein the assumption of jurisdiction has been quashed. In the circumstances, apart from relying upon the orders, it was submitted that she would have nothing further to state. 5. I have heard the submissions and perused

SANJEEV KUMAR GOYAL,FATEHABAD vs. DCIT, CC-2, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is allowed

Bench: This Hon’Ble Tribunal Under Section 253 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 As Amended From Time To Time. 2. The Assessee Is Aggrieved By The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Dt. 20/01/2023 In Appeal No. 10853/2018-19/It/Cit(A)-5/Ldh/2021-22 For The A.Y. 2019-20 Under Section 250(6) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Which Was Dismissed. Therefore The Present Second Appeal Under Section 253 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Before Us Against The Aforesaid Order Dt. 20/01/2023 Which Is Hereinafter Referred To As The Impugned Order.

36. 12 We have perused the AO order No. ITBA/AST/S/143(3)/2021- 22/1035914377(1) dt. 27/09/2021 and we observe that AO has given the following findings: 5.1 A survey was conducted at the business premise of the assessee on 14.09.2018. During the course of survey, the assessee has surrendered an amount of Rs. 45,00,000/- vide surrender letter dated

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

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

AJMER SINGH,MOHALI vs. ITO, W-6(5), MOHAL

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Disposal Of Appeal.”

section 69 of IT Act. 30. While making addition of Rs. 1,73,10,000/-, the Assessing officer had duly ignored the assessee's plea that land was sold for a sum of Rs. 2,30,00,000/- on the ground that assessee had not filed any evidence. However the learned CIT(A) had treated it as if assessee

AJMER SINGH,MOHALI vs. ITO, W-6(5), MOHAL

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Disposal Of Appeal.”

section 69 of IT Act. 30. While making addition of Rs. 1,73,10,000/-, the Assessing officer had duly ignored the assessee's plea that land was sold for a sum of Rs. 2,30,00,000/- on the ground that assessee had not filed any evidence. However the learned CIT(A) had treated it as if assessee

ITO, W-6(5), MOHALI vs. SMT. GURDEV KAUR, KHARAR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Disposal Of Appeal.”

section 69 of IT Act. 30. While making addition of Rs. 1,73,10,000/-, the Assessing officer had duly ignored the assessee's plea that land was sold for a sum of Rs. 2,30,00,000/- on the ground that assessee had not filed any evidence. However the learned CIT(A) had treated it as if assessee

RAJIV KUMAR GOYAL,DHURI vs. DCIT, CC-2, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: This Hon’Ble Tribunal Under Section 253 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 As Amended From Time To Time. 2. The Assessee Is Aggrieved By Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Dated 03/02/2023 In Appeal No. 10850/2018-19/It/Cit(A)-5/Ldh/2021-22 For A.Y. 2019-20 Under Section 250(6) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Which Was Dismissed. Therefore The Present Second Appeal Under Section 253 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Before Us Against The Aforesaid Order Dt. 03/02/2023 Which Is Hereiafter Referred To As The Impugned Order. Factual Matrix 3. The Assessee Had For The Relevant Year I.E; A.Y. 2019-20 Was Also Engaged In The Same Business I.E; Manufacturing Of Pvc Pipes & Had Filed

house property’, (iii) ‘profits and gains from business or profession’, (iv) ‘capital gains’ and (v) ‘income from other sources’ – cannot at all be adjusted against unexplained investment or expenditure. What is necessary as per Hon. Gujarat High Court is that source of acquisition of asset or expenditure should be clearly identifiable. In the case before Hon. Gujarat High Court

DESH MITTER GAIND,PANCHKULA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, PANCHKULA, PANCHKULA, HARYANA

Bench: This Tribunal. The Assessee Is Aggrieved By The Order Of Cit(A) Bearing No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-

House No. 235, Sector 6, Ward-1, Panchkula. Panchkula. "थायी लेखा सं./PAN /TAN No: AATPG3730E अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Yogesh Monga, CA राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue by : Shri Vivek Vardhan, JCIT-Sr.DR तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 25.11.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement : 29.01.2025 PHYSICAL HEARING आदेश/ORDER

M/S PUNJAB TOURISM DEVELOPMENET CORPORATION LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-1(1), CHANDIGARH

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ao)

properties of the corporation were either sold or transferred to the Department of Tourism, Government of Punjab. In the A.Y. 2015-16 there is a payable demand of Rs. 15,11,120/- 50% of legitimate expenses of the corporation which has been made which is extremely unreasonable and uncalled for. 21.2 It was interalia contended that disallowance