SH. VIBHAV JAIN,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-III, LUDHIANA

In the result, the ground no

Bench: SHRI. SANJAY GARG (Judicial Member), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

u/s 68 arbitrarily. These are actual long term capital gains earned by the assessee. h) All the documents in the shape of share certificates issued by Maple Goods Pvt. Ltd. which are part of annexure A containing 1 to 182 pages have been doubted under the words Character of Certificates, inspite of the fact that the AO has not doubted

SH. BIPAN JAIN,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-III, LUDHIANA

In the result, the ground no

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

u/s 68 arbitrarily. These are actual long term capital gains earned by the assessee. h) All the documents in the shape of share certificates issued by Maple Goods Pvt. Ltd. which are part of annexure A containing 1 to 182 pages have been doubted under the words Character of Certificates, inspite of the fact that the AO has not doubted

SH. AKHIL JAIN,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-III, LUDHIANA

In the result, the ground no

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

u/s 68 arbitrarily. These are actual long term capital gains earned by the assessee. h) All the documents in the shape of share certificates issued by Maple Goods Pvt. Ltd. which are part of annexure A containing 1 to 182 pages have been doubted under the words Character of Certificates, inspite of the fact that the AO has not doubted

SH. ASHISH JAIN,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-III, LUDHIANA

In the result, the ground no

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

u/s 68 arbitrarily. These are actual long term capital gains earned by the assessee. h) All the documents in the shape of share certificates issued by Maple Goods Pvt. Ltd. which are part of annexure A containing 1 to 182 pages have been doubted under the words Character of Certificates, inspite of the fact that the AO has not doubted

SH. ASHISH JAIN,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-III, LUDHIANA

In the result, the ground no

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

u/s 68 arbitrarily. These are actual long term capital gains earned by the assessee. h) All the documents in the shape of share certificates issued by Maple Goods Pvt. Ltd. which are part of annexure A containing 1 to 182 pages have been doubted under the words Character of Certificates, inspite of the fact that the AO has not doubted

SBS BIOTECH UNIT II,SIRMOUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

194 Taxman 57 (Delhi)  Krishna Capbox (P.) Ltd. (2015) 60 taxmann.com 243 (All) 13. Thus, where the Assessing Officer has made necessary enquiry and applied his mind, Commissioner cannot exercise his revisional powers under section 263 of the Act. It was submitted that non-passing of elaborated order does not tantamount to non-application of mind

EXOTIC REALTORS AND DEVELOPERS,CHANDIGARH vs. PR.CIT-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

194 Taxmann.com 57 (Del)  Krishna Cop Box (P) Ltd. (2015) 60 Taxmann.com 243 (All) The Ld. AR thus concluded that where the AO has made necessary enquiry and applied his mind, Commissioner or PCIT cannot exercise his revisional powers under section 263 of the Act. 13.9 The Ld. AR then contended that non passing of elaborate order does not tentamount

GEETA SHARMA,SUNAM vs. ITO, SUNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

147 and notice under section 148 was issued. Validity\nof reopening was not challenged upto Tribunal and additions\nwere challenged on merits only. The Tribunal restored the\nmatter to the Assessing Officer with some directions to\nreexamine the issue on merits. When the matter came back to\nthe assessing officer the assessee specifically raised the point of\njurisdiction to reopen

RAKESH KUMAR,JAGADHRI vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PANCHKULA

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

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

194-245 of ws) Gulshan Kumar vs. Pr. CIT (1676/Del/2023) (Del11hi ITAT) o Sanjay Kumar Sharma vs. Pr. CIT (357/Del/2023) (Delhi ITAT). o Pawan Kumar vs. Pr. CIT (1655/Del/2023) (Delhi ITAT) o Smt. Purnima Sareen vs. Pr. CIT Rohtak (892/Del/2023) (Delhi ITAT) o Jai Parkash v. Pr. CIT Rohtak (1675/Del/2023) (Delhi ITAT). o  Explanation 2 below s. 263 defines certain

SH. RAM LAL,FATEHABAD vs. PR.CIT, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

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

194-245 of ws) Gulshan Kumar vs. Pr. CIT (1676/Del/2023) (Del11hi ITAT) o Sanjay Kumar Sharma vs. Pr. CIT (357/Del/2023) (Delhi ITAT). o Pawan Kumar vs. Pr. CIT (1655/Del/2023) (Delhi ITAT) o Smt. Purnima Sareen vs. Pr. CIT Rohtak (892/Del/2023) (Delhi ITAT) o Jai Parkash v. Pr. CIT Rohtak (1675/Del/2023) (Delhi ITAT). o  Explanation 2 below s. 263 defines certain

KARTAR SINGH, FATEHABAD vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

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

194-245 of ws) Gulshan Kumar vs. Pr. CIT (1676/Del/2023) (Del11hi ITAT) o Sanjay Kumar Sharma vs. Pr. CIT (357/Del/2023) (Delhi ITAT). o Pawan Kumar vs. Pr. CIT (1655/Del/2023) (Delhi ITAT) o Smt. Purnima Sareen vs. Pr. CIT Rohtak (892/Del/2023) (Delhi ITAT) o Jai Parkash v. Pr. CIT Rohtak (1675/Del/2023) (Delhi ITAT). o  Explanation 2 below s. 263 defines certain

SH. DEVENDER KUMAR,YAMUNA NAGAR vs. ITO, WARD -1, YAMUNA NAGAR

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

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

194-245 of ws) Gulshan Kumar vs. Pr. CIT (1676/Del/2023) (Del11hi ITAT) o Sanjay Kumar Sharma vs. Pr. CIT (357/Del/2023) (Delhi ITAT). o Pawan Kumar vs. Pr. CIT (1655/Del/2023) (Delhi ITAT) o Smt. Purnima Sareen vs. Pr. CIT Rohtak (892/Del/2023) (Delhi ITAT) o Jai Parkash v. Pr. CIT Rohtak (1675/Del/2023) (Delhi ITAT). o  Explanation 2 below s. 263 defines certain

RAM NIWAS,FATEHABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, INCOME TAX OFFICE, SIRSA ROAD, INDUSTRIAL AREA, FATEHABAD

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

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

194-245 of ws) Gulshan Kumar vs. Pr. CIT (1676/Del/2023) (Del11hi ITAT) o Sanjay Kumar Sharma vs. Pr. CIT (357/Del/2023) (Delhi ITAT). o Pawan Kumar vs. Pr. CIT (1655/Del/2023) (Delhi ITAT) o Smt. Purnima Sareen vs. Pr. CIT Rohtak (892/Del/2023) (Delhi ITAT) o Jai Parkash v. Pr. CIT Rohtak (1675/Del/2023) (Delhi ITAT). o  Explanation 2 below s. 263 defines certain

INDER KAUR,SIRSA vs. PR.CIT, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

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

194-245 of ws) Gulshan Kumar vs. Pr. CIT (1676/Del/2023) (Del11hi ITAT) o Sanjay Kumar Sharma vs. Pr. CIT (357/Del/2023) (Delhi ITAT). o Pawan Kumar vs. Pr. CIT (1655/Del/2023) (Delhi ITAT) o Smt. Purnima Sareen vs. Pr. CIT Rohtak (892/Del/2023) (Delhi ITAT) o Jai Parkash v. Pr. CIT Rohtak (1675/Del/2023) (Delhi ITAT). o  Explanation 2 below s. 263 defines certain

ANIL TUTEJA,FATEHABAD vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ROHTAK, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

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

194-245 of ws) Gulshan Kumar vs. Pr. CIT (1676/Del/2023) (Del11hi ITAT) o Sanjay Kumar Sharma vs. Pr. CIT (357/Del/2023) (Delhi ITAT). o Pawan Kumar vs. Pr. CIT (1655/Del/2023) (Delhi ITAT) o Smt. Purnima Sareen vs. Pr. CIT Rohtak (892/Del/2023) (Delhi ITAT) o Jai Parkash v. Pr. CIT Rohtak (1675/Del/2023) (Delhi ITAT). o  Explanation 2 below s. 263 defines certain

PARVEEN KUMAR,229,VILLAGE MANAKPUR-II,TEHSIL JAGADHRI,HARYANA vs. PRABHJOT KAUR,PCIT PANCHKULA, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

Bench: the Tribunal as pointed out by the Registry. Considering that the issue involved is purely legal in nature, and respectfully following the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji & Others [(1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC)], which emphasizes that substantial justice should prevail over technical considerations, we condone the delay in filing these appeals.3. We shall take appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 167/Chd/2023 for A.Y 2018-19 as a lead case f

194-245 of ws) Gulshan Kumar vs. Pr. CIT (1676/Del/2023) (Del11hi ITAT) o Sanjay Kumar Sharma vs. Pr. CIT (357/Del/2023) (Delhi ITAT). o Pawan Kumar vs. Pr. CIT (1655/Del/2023) (Delhi ITAT) o Smt. Purnima Sareen vs. Pr. CIT Rohtak (892/Del/2023) (Delhi ITAT) o Jai Parkash v. Pr. CIT Rohtak (1675/Del/2023) (Delhi ITAT). o  Explanation 2 below s. 263 defines certain

KARAN PRATAP SINGH,SIRSA, HARYANA vs. ITO, WARD-1, SIRSA, HARYANA

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

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

194-245 of ws) Gulshan Kumar vs. Pr. CIT (1676/Del/2023) (Del11hi ITAT) o Sanjay Kumar Sharma vs. Pr. CIT (357/Del/2023) (Delhi ITAT). o Pawan Kumar vs. Pr. CIT (1655/Del/2023) (Delhi ITAT) o Smt. Purnima Sareen vs. Pr. CIT Rohtak (892/Del/2023) (Delhi ITAT) o Jai Parkash v. Pr. CIT Rohtak (1675/Del/2023) (Delhi ITAT). o  Explanation 2 below s. 263 defines certain

MANINDER JEET SINGH V.P.O. UDHAMGARH,JAGADHRI,HARYANA vs. PRABHJOT KAUR,PCIT, PANCHKULA

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

194-245 of ws) Gulshan Kumar vs. Pr. CIT (1676/Del/2023) (Del11hi ITAT) o Sanjay Kumar Sharma vs. Pr. CIT (357/Del/2023) (Delhi ITAT). o Pawan Kumar vs. Pr. CIT (1655/Del/2023) (Delhi ITAT) o Smt. Purnima Sareen vs. Pr. CIT Rohtak (892/Del/2023) (Delhi ITAT) o Jai Parkash v. Pr. CIT Rohtak (1675/Del/2023) (Delhi ITAT). o  Explanation 2 below s. 263 defines certain