ACIT, CIRCLE, SHIMLA vs. SHRI VINOD SHARMA, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Dr Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1449/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 The Acit, Vs. Shri Vinod Sharma, बनाम B-1/3, Circle, Safdarjang Enclave, Shimla New Delhi 110029 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Abkps1560N अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent (Hybrid Mode ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Sh. Vishal Mohan, Sr. Advocate With Shri Ahninav Bazwaria, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Smt. Kusum Bansal, Cit Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 10.06.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09.07.2024

house". To decide the issue at hand, it is pertinent to take note of the documentary evidence on record. The offer letter issued by Jaypee Greens and the amount decided as is seen from the provisional allotment letter are both provisional and tentative to change. In this context, the relevant extracts from the allotment letter dated 30.03.2012 reveals the following

ITO, W-4, PANCHKULA vs. SMT. SEEMA DHILLON, PANCHKULA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Shri B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2008-09

90, Sec-2, Panchkula PAN No. AGXPD1603P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Sh. Raj Bishnoi Revenue By : Sh. Manjit Singh Date of hearing : 19/03/2018 Date of Pronouncement : 27/03/2018 ORDER PER B.R.R. KUMAR A.M. The present appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the order of the Ld. CIT(A), Panchkula dt. 11/07/2017. 2. In the present appeal Revenue has raised

ITO, W-4, PANCHKULA vs. MRS. SUNITA, PANCHKULA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Shri B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2008-09

90, Sec-2, Panchkula PAN No. COGPS0273H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Sh. Raj Bishnoi Revenue By : Sh. Manjit Singh Date of hearing : 19/03/2018 Date of Pronouncement : 27/03/2018 ORDER PER B.R.R. KUMAR A.M. The present appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the order of the Ld. CIT(A), Panchkula dt. 13/07/2017. 2. In the present appeal Revenue has raised

SH. AMAR SINGH,JAGADHARI vs. ITO, YAMUNANAGAR

In the result, both the appeal of different assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

90% consideration was received on 14.08.2008 i.e. AY 2009-10 2. That learned CIT (Appeals) has erred in law and facts in not allowing the benefit of investments in new agriculture land amounting Rs. 1,83,36,650/- u/s 54B & 54F invested subsequent to the receipt of money against sale of agriculture land. 3. That learned CIT (Appeals) has erred

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

90% consideration was received on 14.08.2008 i.e. AY 2009-10 2. That learned CIT (Appeals) has erred in law and facts in not allowing the benefit of investments in new agriculture land amounting Rs. 1,83,36,650/- u/s 54B & 54F invested subsequent to the receipt of money against sale of agriculture land. 3. That learned CIT (Appeals) has erred

KARNAIL SINGH,UK vs. JCIT (OSD) INTL. TAXATION, CIRCLE, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stands allowed

House property” and has claimed statutory deduction under section 24 of the Act. Further the assessee has claimed credit of TDS deducted by M/s Omaxe Ltd. @ 15% as per Article-12 of India and U.K DTAA r/w Section 90

KARNAIL SINGH,UK vs. JCIT (OSD) INTL. TAXATION, CIRCLE, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stands allowed

House property” and has claimed statutory deduction under section 24 of the Act. Further the assessee has claimed credit of TDS deducted by M/s Omaxe Ltd. @ 15% as per Article-12 of India and U.K DTAA r/w Section 90

KARNAIL SINGH,UK vs. JCIT (OSD) INTL. TAXATION, CIRCLE, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stands allowed

House property” and has claimed statutory deduction under section 24 of the Act. Further the assessee has claimed credit of TDS deducted by M/s Omaxe Ltd. @ 15% as per Article-12 of India and U.K DTAA r/w Section 90

KARNAIL SINGH,UK vs. JCIT (OSD) INTL. TAXATION, CIRCLE, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stands allowed

House property” and has claimed statutory deduction under section 24 of the Act. Further the assessee has claimed credit of TDS deducted by M/s Omaxe Ltd. @ 15% as per Article-12 of India and U.K DTAA r/w Section 90

KARNAIL SINGH,UK vs. JCIT (OSD) INTL. TAXATION, CIRCLE, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stands allowed

House property” and has claimed statutory deduction under section 24 of the Act. Further the assessee has claimed credit of TDS deducted by M/s Omaxe Ltd. @ 15% as per Article-12 of India and U.K DTAA r/w Section 90

KARNAIL SINGH,UK vs. JCIT (OSD) INTL. TAXATION, CIRCLE, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stands allowed

House property” and has claimed statutory deduction under section 24 of the Act. Further the assessee has claimed credit of TDS deducted by M/s Omaxe Ltd. @ 15% as per Article-12 of India and U.K DTAA r/w Section 90

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.

House property” and has claimed statutory deduction under section 24 of the Act. Further the assessee has claimed credit of TDS deducted by M/s Omaxe Ltd. @ 50% as per Article-12 of India and U.K DTAA r/w Section 90

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.

House property” and has claimed statutory deduction under section 24 of the Act. Further the assessee has claimed credit of TDS deducted by M/s Omaxe Ltd. @ 50% as per Article-12 of India and U.K DTAA r/w Section 90

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.

House property” and has claimed statutory deduction under section 24 of the Act. Further the assessee has claimed credit of TDS deducted by M/s Omaxe Ltd. @ 50% as per Article-12 of India and U.K DTAA r/w Section 90

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.

House property” and has claimed statutory deduction under section 24 of the Act. Further the assessee has claimed credit of TDS deducted by M/s Omaxe Ltd. @ 50% as per Article-12 of India and U.K DTAA r/w Section 90

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.

House property” and has claimed statutory deduction under section 24 of the Act. Further the assessee has claimed credit of TDS deducted by M/s Omaxe Ltd. @ 50% as per Article-12 of India and U.K DTAA r/w Section 90

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.

House property” and has claimed statutory deduction under section 24 of the Act. Further the assessee has claimed credit of TDS deducted by M/s Omaxe Ltd. @ 50% as per Article-12 of India and U.K DTAA r/w Section 90

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, profits and gains of business or profession, or capital gains, nor as it income from "other sources" because the provisions of section 69, 69A, 69B and 69C treat unexplained investments, unexplained money, bullion etc. and unexplained expenditure as deemed income where the nature and sources of investment, acquisition or expenditure, as the case may be, have not been