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

81,464/ made by the Assessing Officer under the head "Income from Property" for the assessment year under appeal without appreciating nomenclature of business of assessee and without appreciating that any income from these flats, in the form of rent, can also only be taxed u/s 28 of the Act. ITA 907/CHD/2024 A.Y. 2017-18 5 2.1. That

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)

section 143(3) is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to interest of revenue. 10. It was submitted that the Ld. PCIT has taken schedule of residential land for conversion lands rate of DDA for residential purposes. There are 2 elements in schedule referred by her that (i) It is conversion rate (ii) It is land rate of DDA for residential purposes

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

SHRI BALBIR SINGH VERMA,SHIMLA vs. PR.CIT, SHIMLA

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

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

house property and salary as a sitting MLA from HP Vidhan Sabha. Key issues examined included deductions claimed under Section 24(b) for interest on borrowed capital, motor car expenses, loans and advances, unsecured loans, and additional income of Rs. 1,25,00,000/- declared post a survey under Section 133A conducted on 04.03.2015. 3.2 Regarding Interest Claimed under Section

DCIT, CC-3, LUDHIANA, KITCHLU NAGAR vs. MANI RAM BALWANT RAI HUF, CIVIL LINES

In the result, Cross Objection filed by the assessee is allowed and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1042/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2019-20 The Dcit, Mani Ram Balwant Rai, Huf, Central Circle-3, Vs Civil Lines, Opposite Session Court(Old) Kitchlu Nagar, Ludhiana. Ludhiana. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aaghm1535C अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & C.O. 43/Chd/2024 In आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1042/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2019-20 Mani Ram Balwant Rai, Huf, The Dcit, Civil Lines, Opposite Session Court(Old) V Central Circle-3, Ludhiana. S Kitchlu Nagar, Ludhiana. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aaghm1535C अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Revenue By : Smt. Kusum Bansal, Cit Dr Assessee By : Shri Pankaj Bhalla, Ca & Shri Hunny Bajaj, Advocate Date Of Hearing : 17.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 01.09.2025 Hybrid Hearing O R D E R Per Rajpal Yadav, Vp

house property income. It has filed its return of income on 20.05.2020 declaring total income of Rs.87,25,340/- for assessment year 2019-20. According to the AO, assessee belongs to Mani Ram Balwant Rai Group of Ludhiana where a search u/s 132(1) was carried out at the residential/business premises of Mani Ram Balwant Rai on 24.11.2022. A warrant

NARENDER KAUR,KURUKSHETRA, HARYANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1 , KURUKSHETRA

section 56, a deduction of a sum equal to fifty per cent. of such\nincome and no deduction shall be allowed under any other clause of this\nsection.\"\n21. The Assessing Officer in I. T. A. No. 132 of 2018 where the assessee had\nreceived Rs.11,30,561 as interest income, held that the interest payment\nreceived on compensation/enhanced compensation

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

81,830/-. The AO was of the view that GP ought A.Y.2018-19 6 to be estimated at 10.10% instead of 8.80% adopted by the assessee because the ld. AO has rejected the book result on the basis of discovery of unaccounted sales. In this way AO has worked out the GP of accounted sales at Rs.6

BABITA JAIN,AMBALA CITY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER ,WARD -1 AMBALA, AMBALA CANTT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed as and by way of remand back to the file of Ld

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

section 142(1) alongwith questionnaire were also issued from time to time in response to which the assessee filed reply online. 6. That during the proceedings the assessee was specifically asked to explain the source of cash deposits of Rs. 48,70,000/- during the demonetization period i.e; 09/11/2016 to 31/12/2016. 7. In response to the query (supra), the assessee

DCIT, C-1 (EXEMPTIONS), CHANDIGARH vs. THE INSTITUTION OF CIVIL ENGINEERS SOCIETY, LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

property\" of the trust or institution is,\nor continues to be, made available for the use of any person referred to in\nsub-section (3), for any period during the previous year without charging\nadequate rent or other compensation;\n(c) if any amount is paid by way of salary, allowance or otherwise during\nthe previous year to any person

BALVINDER SINGH,FATEHABAD vs. ITO WARD-1, FATEHABAD

section 2(24)\n28A, as under:\n(iii) agricultural land55 in India, not being land situate-\n(a) in any area which is comprised within the jurisdiction of a\nmunicipality55 (whether known as a municipality, municipal\ncorporation, notified area committee, town area committee, town\ncommittee, or by any other name) or a cantonment board and\nwhich has a population56

BISHAN CHAND,CHANDIGARH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 5 (5), CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

section 56, a deduction of a sum equal to fifty per cent. of such\nincome and no deduction shall be allowed under any other clause of this\nsection.\"\n21. The Assessing Officer in I. T. A. No. 132 of 2018 where the assessee had\nreceived Rs.11,30,561 as interest income, held that the interest payment\nreceived on compensation/enhanced compensation

SH. RAM LAL,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO, WARD-6(1), CHANDIGARH

section 56, a deduction of a sum equal to fifty per cent. of such\nincome and no deduction shall be allowed under any other clause of this\nsection.\"\n21. The Assessing Officer in I. T. A. No. 132 of 2018 where the assessee had\nreceived Rs.11,30,561 as interest income, held that the interest payment\nreceived on compensation/enhanced compensation

SH. AMRIK SINGH,PANCHKULA vs. ITO, WARD-2, PANCHKULA

section 2(24)\n28A, as under:\n(iii) agricultural land55 in India, not being land situate-\n(a) in any area which is comprised within the jurisdiction of a\nmunicipality55 (whether known as a municipality, municipal\ncorporation, notified area committee, town area committee, town\ncommittee, or by any other name) or a cantonment board and\nwhich has a population56

HARMALA,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO, WARD 1(1), NANGAL

Section 16 or Section 17 of the Act. We, therefore, hold that the\nstatutory interest paid under Section 34 of the Act is interest paid for the\ndelayed payment of the compensation amount and, therefore, is a revenue\nreceipt liable to tax under the Income Tax Act.\"\n9. This position of law has been consistently reiterated by this Court

M/S YOGRAJ CHAUDHARY,YAMUNA NAGAR vs. ITO, WARD-5, YAMUNA NAGAR

section 1048 [or by an electoral trust]].\nExplanation. For the purposes of this sub-clause, \"trust\" includes any other\nlegal obligation ;)\n(iii) the value of any perquisite or profit in lieu of salary taxable under clauses (2)\nand (3) of section 17;\n42[(iiia) any special allowance or benefit, other than perquisite included under sub-\nclause (iii), specifically granted

AMRINDER SINGH KHUBBER,AMBALA vs. ITO, W-5, AMBALA

Accordingly, finding no merit in the appeals, the same are hereby\ndismissed

section 2(24)\n28A, as under:\n(iii) agricultural land55 in India, not being land situate-\n(a) in any area which is comprised within the jurisdiction of a\nmunicipality55 (whether known as a municipality, municipal\ncorporation, notified area committee, town area committee, town\ncommittee, or by any other name) or a cantonment board and\nwhich has a population56

RAJBIR SINGH,VILL. GARHI BANJARA vs. ITO, WARD-3, YAMUNANAGAR

section 2(24)\n28A, as under:\n(iii) agricultural land55 in India, not being land situate-\n(a) in any area which is comprised within the jurisdiction of a\nmunicipality55 (whether known as a municipality, municipal\ncorporation, notified area committee, town area committee, town\ncommittee, or by any other name) or a cantonment board and\nwhich has a population56

SUSHMA,HARYANA vs. ITO, WARD - 4, YAMUNA NAGAR, YAMUNA NAGAR

section 2(24)\n28A, as under:\n(iii) agricultural land55 in India, not being land situate-\n(a) in any area which is comprised within the jurisdiction of a\nmunicipality55 (whether known as a municipality, municipal\ncorporation, notified area committee, town area committee, town\ncommittee, or by any other name) or a cantonment board and\nwhich has a population56

JAGPAL SINGH,CHANDIGARH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 5(5), CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

section 2(24)\n28A, as under:\n(iii) agricultural land55 in India, not being land situate-\n(a) in any area which is comprised within the jurisdiction of a\nmunicipality55 (whether known as a municipality, municipal\ncorporation, notified area committee, town area committee, town\ncommittee, or by any other name) or a cantonment board and\nwhich has a population56