M/S HARBHAJAN SINGH & CO.,SANGRUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE, SANGRUR

Appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

house property. Likewise, a company may have income from other sources . . . The company may also, as in that case, keep the surplus funds in short-term deposits in order to earn interest. Such interest will be chargeable under section 56 of the Income-tax Act'. This court also emphasised the fact that the company was not bound to utilise

SHRI RAJDEEP SINGH CHIMNI,CHANDIGARH vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the addition so made and sustained by the ld CIT(A) is hereby deleted and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

house property at Vasant Kunj for Rs. 99,75J000/- (15% share) whose circle rate valuation was Rs. 1,23,32,085/- (15% share). The difference in sale consideration based on circle rate and actual rate was Rs. 23,57,085/- (15% share). The assessee was provided with a show cause and he was asked to show cause

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

ITO, LUDHIANA vs. SH. CHARANJIT SINGH ATWAL, LUDHIANA

In the result, the penalty of the assessee is hereby allowed and that of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year : 2007-08 Sh. Charanjit Singh Atwal, Vs. The Ito, Ward 6(1), 484-A, Model Town Extension, Ludhiana Ludhiana

Housing Development Company Ltd. (THDC). Under the JDA, it was agreed that HASH and THDC viz., the developers, will undertake to develop 21.2 acres of land owned and registered in the name of the society. The agreed consideration was of Rs. 237,03,75,000/- (Rs. 106,42,50,000/- in cash and Rs. 103,61,25,000/- in kind

SH. CHARANJIT SINGH ATWAL,LUDHIANA vs. ITO, LUDHIANA

In the result, the penalty of the assessee is hereby allowed and that of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year : 2007-08 Sh. Charanjit Singh Atwal, Vs. The Ito, Ward 6(1), 484-A, Model Town Extension, Ludhiana Ludhiana

Housing Development Company Ltd. (THDC). Under the JDA, it was agreed that HASH and THDC viz., the developers, will undertake to develop 21.2 acres of land owned and registered in the name of the society. The agreed consideration was of Rs. 237,03,75,000/- (Rs. 106,42,50,000/- in cash and Rs. 103,61,25,000/- in kind

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. VIJAY KUMAR GUPTA,,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

Bench: Smt.Diva Singh & Smt.Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.150/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2004-05

House in Sector 27, Chandigarh jointly with S/Shri Ashwani Kumar Gupta and Vijay Kumar Gupta during the year but as the assessee had failed to furnish any evidence regarding the nature and source of this investment either in the return of income or in the course of proceedings, the Assessing Officer held that 1/5 t h share in the total

SH. ASHWANI KUMAR GUPTA,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-I, CHANDIGARH

Bench: Smt.Diva Singh & Smt.Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.150/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2004-05

House in Sector 27, Chandigarh jointly with S/Shri Ashwani Kumar Gupta and Vijay Kumar Gupta during the year but as the assessee had failed to furnish any evidence regarding the nature and source of this investment either in the return of income or in the course of proceedings, the Assessing Officer held that 1/5 t h share in the total

SH. AJAY KUMAR GUPTA,,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, C-I, CHANDIGARH

Bench: Smt.Diva Singh & Smt.Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.150/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2004-05

House in Sector 27, Chandigarh jointly with S/Shri Ashwani Kumar Gupta and Vijay Kumar Gupta during the year but as the assessee had failed to furnish any evidence regarding the nature and source of this investment either in the return of income or in the course of proceedings, the Assessing Officer held that 1/5 t h share in the total

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

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

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

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