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

77,11,375/-. 11. The assessee challenged the assessment order and addition before ld. CIT(Appeals), however, appeal of the assessee has been dismissed. 12. The ld. counsel for the assessee referred to the documents filed in the Paper Book and submitted that identical issue has been considered by ITAT, Division Bench, Chandigarh in group cases of Shri Rajiv Kumar

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

KARNAIL SINGH vs. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CHANDIGARH

In the result, ground no. 9 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue

Bench: Us.

77,428/-. 5. That the appellant had no place of residence or any office in India and no search had taken place and the provisions of Section 153A were not applicable and the alleged notice issued U/s.l53A was unauthorized, illegal and unlawful and, therefore, the assessment made U/s.l53Ais also unjust, unlawful and bad in law. 6. That in any case

KARNAIL SINGH vs. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CHANDIGARH

In the result, ground no. 9 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue

Bench: Us.

77,428/-. 5. That the appellant had no place of residence or any office in India and no search had taken place and the provisions of Section 153A were not applicable and the alleged notice issued U/s.l53A was unauthorized, illegal and unlawful and, therefore, the assessment made U/s.l53Ais also unjust, unlawful and bad in law. 6. That in any case

KARNAIL SINGH vs. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CHANDIGARH

In the result, ground no. 9 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue

Bench: Us.

77,428/-. 5. That the appellant had no place of residence or any office in India and no search had taken place and the provisions of Section 153A were not applicable and the alleged notice issued U/s.l53A was unauthorized, illegal and unlawful and, therefore, the assessment made U/s.l53Ais also unjust, unlawful and bad in law. 6. That in any case

KARNAIL SINGH vs. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CHANDIGARH

In the result, ground no. 9 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue

Bench: Us.

77,428/-. 5. That the appellant had no place of residence or any office in India and no search had taken place and the provisions of Section 153A were not applicable and the alleged notice issued U/s.l53A was unauthorized, illegal and unlawful and, therefore, the assessment made U/s.l53Ais also unjust, unlawful and bad in law. 6. That in any case

KARNAIL SINGH vs. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CHANDIGARH

In the result, ground no. 9 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue

Bench: Us.

77,428/-. 5. That the appellant had no place of residence or any office in India and no search had taken place and the provisions of Section 153A were not applicable and the alleged notice issued U/s.l53A was unauthorized, illegal and unlawful and, therefore, the assessment made U/s.l53Ais also unjust, unlawful and bad in law. 6. That in any case

KARNAIL SINGH vs. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CHANDIGARH

In the result, ground no. 9 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue

Bench: Us.

77,428/-. 5. That the appellant had no place of residence or any office in India and no search had taken place and the provisions of Section 153A were not applicable and the alleged notice issued U/s.l53A was unauthorized, illegal and unlawful and, therefore, the assessment made U/s.l53Ais also unjust, unlawful and bad in law. 6. That in any case

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

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Disposal Of Appeal.”

House No. 85, Village Rai Pur Kalan Kharar, SAS Nagar, Mohali "थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: CWJPS6206H अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent िनधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Tej Mohan Singh, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue by : Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr. DR सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date of Hearing : 06/02/2024 उदघोषणा क" तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 03/05/2024 आदेश

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

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Disposal Of Appeal.”

House No. 85, Village Rai Pur Kalan Kharar, SAS Nagar, Mohali "थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: CWJPS6206H अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent िनधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Tej Mohan Singh, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue by : Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr. DR सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date of Hearing : 06/02/2024 उदघोषणा क" तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 03/05/2024 आदेश

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 No. 85, Village Rai Pur Kalan Kharar, SAS Nagar, Mohali "थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: CWJPS6206H अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent िनधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Tej Mohan Singh, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue by : Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr. DR सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date of Hearing : 06/02/2024 उदघोषणा क" तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 03/05/2024 आदेश

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

DCIT, CIRCLE, PATIALA vs. M/S PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LTD., PATIALA

In the result, ground no. 1 & 3 of the Revenue’s appeal is allowed and ground no

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

77,19,013 Assessed as income from other sources in the set aside 18.10.2021 assessment proceedings. No further appeal preferred by the assessee. 2013-14 64,99,01,919 Assessed as income from other sources in the set aside 29.09.2021 assessment proceedings. No further appeal preferred by the assessee. 2014-15 67,28,75,549 Assessed as income from other

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

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

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

77,870/- 4. Income from Capital gain STCG Rs. 2,09,108/- - LTCG Rs. 1,54,29,120/- - 5. Income from other sources Rs. 1,81,488/- Rs. 1,81,488/- 6. Gross Total Income Rs. 1,59,97,586/- Rs. 3,59,358/- 7. Deductions (Chapter VI-A) Rs. 10,000/- Rs. 10,000/- 8. Total Income

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

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

77,870/- 4. Income from Capital gain STCG Rs. 2,09,108/- - LTCG Rs. 1,54,29,120/- - 5. Income from other sources Rs. 1,81,488/- Rs. 1,81,488/- 6. Gross Total Income Rs. 1,59,97,586/- Rs. 3,59,358/- 7. Deductions (Chapter VI-A) Rs. 10,000/- Rs. 10,000/- 8. Total Income

MAHAKALI DEVELOPERS AND RESORTS PRIVATE LIMITED,SCF vs. PCIT PATIALA, AAYKAR BHAWAN

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahay

house property income at Rs.17,14,387/- in ITA No.294 & 295/CHD/2024 A.Y.2013-14 & 2015-16 3 assessment year 2013-14 and Rs.20,47,661/-. It has claimed deduction under Section 24(1) of the Income Tax Act of Rs.7,34,738/- in assessment year 2013-14 and Rs.8,77

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)

77,029/- as additional income over & above business income in his return of income filed for A.Y 2019-20. During the scrutiny proceedings, the Assessing Officer assessed the surrendered amount as "deemed income" i.e income from undisclosed sources. There is no dispute of surrendered amount as the same has been offered for taxation in return of income