DCIT, C-,1 (E), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S PUNJAB MEDICAL FOUNDATION CHARITABLE TRUST, JALANDHAR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: S/Shri N.K. Saini, Vice- & Rajpal Yadav, Vice-"नधा"रण वष"/ Asstt.Year: 2014-15 Dcit, Cir.1(Exemption) M/S.Punjab Medical Foundation Chandigarh. Vs. Charitable Trust 63-64, Waryam Nagar Cool Road, Jalandhar Pan : Aaatp 5171 B (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri Sudhir Sehal, Advocate Assessee By Revenue By : Shri Ashok K. Khana, Addl.Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 18/11/2020 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/12/2020 आदेश/O R D E R

property held under a trust does not enure for the benefit of public, and it has been used for the benefit of certain individuals who happen to be relatives of the trustee, then such receipt will not qualify for exemption under sections 11 and 12 of the Act. In other words, benefit of section 11 and 12 would not available

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD), LUDHIANA vs. M/S SHEETAL INDUSTRIES , KHANNA

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahay

79,82,726/- in respect of Gross Profit on extrapolated sales and Rs. 82,85,851/- in respect of profit earned after rejecting books of accounts should be telescoped into the investment/surrender of Rs. 2.80 crores offered in the return of income. The said issue has been examined at length and the AR was asked to submit the chronology

SH. GULSHAN KUMAR PROP. G.K. RESORTS,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT CIRCLE-2, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt.Diva Singh & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavsh. Gulshan Kumar बनाम Deputy Commissioner Of Prop. G. K. Resorts House No. 3, Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Agar Nagar Extension, Ferospur Ludhiana Road, Ludhiana 1410212, Punjab "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aaqpk1200Q

79) Add: Other Receipts on A/c of Loan 2,77,824/- Installments received from Rohit and Sahil Kumar Jointly deposited in ICICI Bank loan account Add: Cash from GK Resorts-Capital Account 12,00,000/- (Page no. 105) Total 1,09,54,491/- Less; Other Deposits – 1,40,620/- Less: Total Deposits

M/S AKSHAJ INFRA PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

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

79,838 was  made under Section 68 on account of unexplained unsecured loans/share capital, as the AO noted a failure to provide necessary confirmations and documentary evidence. Disallowance of Interest: The AO disallowed interest deductions on  borrowed funds (e.g., Rs. 58,37,021 in AY 2009-10) against rental income, asserting that the assessee had not justified the claim with

VIMAL GROVER,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO WARD 5, YAMUNANAGR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 957/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 बनाम Shri Vimal Grover, The Ito, 1473, Basement & Ground Floor, Ward 5, Vs Sector 40-B, Chandigarh. Yamuna Nagar. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan /Tan No: Aaypg3728P अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Ajay Jain, Ca राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 18.03.2026 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 15.04.2026 Hybrid Hearing

Section 54 of the Act. 7. The ld.CIT (Appeals) did not accept the contentions of the assessee and confirmed the addition on the ground that assessee has shown unexplained credit in the accounts which deserves to be added in his income. 8. Before us, ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that assessment in A.Y. 2014-15 was made

SH. AMARDEEP SINGH ATHWAL,YAMUNANAGAR vs. ITO, WARD-1, YAMUNANAGAR

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

Section 16 or Section 17 of the Act. We, therefore, hold that the statutory interest paid under Section 34 of the Act is interest paid for the delayed payment of the compensation amount and, therefore, is a revenue receipt liable to tax under the Income Tax Act." 9. This position of law has been consistently reiterated by this Court

SH. AMARDEEP SINGH ATHWAL,YAMUNANAGAR vs. ITO, WARD-1, YAMUNANAGAR

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

Section 16 or Section 17 of the Act. We, therefore, hold that the statutory interest paid under Section 34 of the Act is interest paid for the delayed payment of the compensation amount and, therefore, is a revenue receipt liable to tax under the Income Tax Act." 9. This position of law has been consistently reiterated by this Court

SAROJ CHAUDHARY BALA,PANCHKULA vs. ITO, WARD-4, PANCHKULA

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

Section 16 or Section 17 of the Act. We, therefore, hold that the statutory interest paid under Section 34 of the Act is interest paid for the delayed payment of the compensation amount and, therefore, is a revenue receipt liable to tax under the Income Tax Act." 9. This position of law has been consistently reiterated by this Court

INCOME TAX OFFICER, FATEHABAD vs. MAHESH NAGPAL, FATEHABAD

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

Section 16 or Section 17 of the Act. We, therefore, hold that the statutory interest paid under Section 34 of the Act is interest paid for the delayed payment of the compensation amount and, therefore, is a revenue receipt liable to tax under the Income Tax Act." 9. This position of law has been consistently reiterated by this Court

PAWAN KUMAR,FATEHABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, FATEHABAD

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

Section 16 or Section 17 of the Act. We, therefore, hold that the statutory interest paid under Section 34 of the Act is interest paid for the delayed payment of the compensation amount and, therefore, is a revenue receipt liable to tax under the Income Tax Act." 9. This position of law has been consistently reiterated by this Court

RANJIT SINGH,PANCHKULA vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR, CPC DEPARTMENT

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

Section 16 or Section 17 of the Act. We, therefore, hold that the statutory interest paid under Section 34 of the Act is interest paid for the delayed payment of the compensation amount and, therefore, is a revenue receipt liable to tax under the Income Tax Act." 9. This position of law has been consistently reiterated by this Court

BALBIR KUMAR HUF,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO , CHANDIGARH

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

Section 16 or Section 17 of the Act. We, therefore, hold that the statutory interest paid under Section 34 of the Act is interest paid for the delayed payment of the compensation amount and, therefore, is a revenue receipt liable to tax under the Income Tax Act." 9. This position of law has been consistently reiterated by this Court

SMT. SHANKRI DEVI,PANCHKULA vs. ACIT, PANCKULA CIRCLE, PANCHKULA

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

Section 16 or Section 17 of the Act. We, therefore, hold that the statutory interest paid under Section 34 of the Act is interest paid for the delayed payment of the compensation amount and, therefore, is a revenue receipt liable to tax under the Income Tax Act." 9. This position of law has been consistently reiterated by this Court

ARJESH KUMAR,PATIALA vs. ITO NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE , DELHI

Section 16 or Section 17 of the Act. We, therefore, hold that the statutory interest paid under Section 34 of the Act is interest paid for the delayed payment of the compensation amount and, therefore, is a revenue receipt liable to tax under the Income Tax Act." 9. This position of law has been consistently reiterated by this Court

DCIT, (E), C-1, CHANDIGARH vs. THE PATIALA IMPROVEMENT TRUST, PATIALA

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue for the Assessment years 2013-14 and 2015-16 are dismissed and appeal pertaining to the Assessment year 2014-15 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

properties on commercial lines) has become the predominant activity to the detriment of the main mandate of the improvement Trusts namely town improvement. vii. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law in not taking into account the amendment brought in section 2(15) w.e.f. 01.04.2016 which expressly bars exemptions

JCIT (OSD), (EXEMPTIONS), C-1, CHANDIGARH vs. PATIALA IMPROVEMENT TRUST, PATIALA

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue for the Assessment years 2013-14 and 2015-16 are dismissed and appeal pertaining to the Assessment year 2014-15 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

properties on commercial lines) has become the predominant activity to the detriment of the main mandate of the improvement Trusts namely town improvement. vii. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law in not taking into account the amendment brought in section 2(15) w.e.f. 01.04.2016 which expressly bars exemptions

DCIT, C-1 (E), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S IMPROVEMENT TRUST, PATIALA

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue for the Assessment years 2013-14 and 2015-16 are dismissed and appeal pertaining to the Assessment year 2014-15 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

properties on commercial lines) has become the predominant activity to the detriment of the main mandate of the improvement Trusts namely town improvement. vii. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law in not taking into account the amendment brought in section 2(15) w.e.f. 01.04.2016 which expressly bars exemptions

LEELA DUTT SHARMA,CHANDIGARH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 5(3), CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

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

House Property" and "Income from Other Sources" but provided no details regarding the cash deposits in question. 3.1 The Ld. AO decided that the cash deposits of Rs. 62,89,450/- in the assessee’s Canara Bank account were unexplained income 3 under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act. The AO confirmed that the money belonged to the assessee