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

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

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.

house property and loss from other sources are Rs.8,73,382/-. In the profit & loss account, the assessee has shown income of Rs.45,00,000/- with narration Income from Business on A/c of shortage of cash and building exp. As surrender u/s 133A on the credit side of Profit & loss Account. iii) That the return of income was accompanied with

SHRI SANJAY JAIN,BATHINDA vs. PR.CIT(CENTRAL), LUDHIANA

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

73 of the Paper Book there were two more issues i.e. one with regard to unsecured loan raised from Swagat Trading and the other on account of ‘Income from House Property’. It was submitted that, the Ld. PCIT has not given any adverse ITA Nos. 140 to 143-Chd-2021 Sh. Sanjay Jain and Others, Ludhiana 16 finding with regard

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

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

73 of the Paper Book there were two more issues i.e. one with regard to unsecured loan raised from Swagat Trading and the other on account of ‘Income from House Property’. It was submitted that, the Ld. PCIT has not given any adverse ITA Nos. 140 to 143-Chd-2021 Sh. Sanjay Jain and Others, Ludhiana 16 finding with regard

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

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

73 of the Paper Book there were two more issues i.e. one with regard to unsecured loan raised from Swagat Trading and the other on account of ‘Income from House Property’. It was submitted that, the Ld. PCIT has not given any adverse ITA Nos. 140 to 143-Chd-2021 Sh. Sanjay Jain and Others, Ludhiana 16 finding with regard

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

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Disposal Of Appeal.”

house wife and having no taxable income in AY 2010-11. However the AO made addition of Rs. 1,73,10,000/- in the hand of Baldev Kaur @ Gurdev Kaur vide order dated 23.03.2016. Similar addition of Rs. 1,73,10,000/- was made later on in the case of Ajmer Singh by issuing a notice u/s 148 and completing

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

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Disposal Of Appeal.”

house wife and having no taxable income in AY 2010-11. However the AO made addition of Rs. 1,73,10,000/- in the hand of Baldev Kaur @ Gurdev Kaur vide order dated 23.03.2016. Similar addition of Rs. 1,73,10,000/- was made later on in the case of Ajmer Singh by issuing a notice u/s 148 and completing

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

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Disposal Of Appeal.”

house wife and having no taxable income in AY 2010-11. However the AO made addition of Rs. 1,73,10,000/- in the hand of Baldev Kaur @ Gurdev Kaur vide order dated 23.03.2016. Similar addition of Rs. 1,73,10,000/- was made later on in the case of Ajmer Singh by issuing a notice u/s 148 and completing

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

KAKA SINGH ALIAS GULJAR SINGH,PATIALA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , PATIALA

section 57.\nThe said provision reads thus:\n\"57. Deductions.-The income chargeable under the head 'Income from other\nsources' shall be computed after making the following deductions, namely :.\n(iv) in the case of income of the nature referred to in clause (viii) of sub-\nsection (2) of section 56, a deduction of a sum equal to fifty

SMT. SUKIANA PARVEZ ALI KHAN,MOHALI vs. ITO, W-6(3), MOHALI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

73,927/- on sale of House Property No. 103 and 104 in Malad, Mumbai. This property was sold for a consideration of Rs. 1,10,50,000/-. The assessee has claimed exemption of Rs. 54,00,000/- u/s 54 of the Act on the ground that she has purchased two flats for Rs. 27,00,000/- each at Suncity, Baddi

INCOME TAX OFFICER, MOHALI vs. GURTEJ SINGH, MOHALI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

73,560/- on 30/07/2017 which was processed u/s 143(1)(a) of the Act at the declared income. It was seen by the AO that the assessee had purchased an immovable Property during the year under consideration at Rs. 4,00,00,000/- and the value of the property adopted by the Stamp Valuation Authority

KANWALDEEP KAUR,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

73,560/- on 30/07/2017 which was processed u/s 143(1)(a) of the Act at the declared income. It was seen by the AO that the assessee had purchased an immovable Property during the year under consideration at Rs. 4,00,00,000/- and the value of the property adopted by the Stamp Valuation Authority

M/S PAGRO FROZEN FOODS PVT. LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO, W-2(3), CHANDIGARH

The appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

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

property generated as result of the project will be owned wholly by Ministry of Food Processing Industries. Moving further the Ld. DR placed heavy reliance on endorsement in the letter at Serial No. 1 where copy of the letter was forwarded to “ The Director M/s Pagro Frozen Foods Private Limited, House No. 1763, Phase III-B2, Mohali, Punjab