PARVEEN KUMAR MITTAL,YAMUNA NAGAR vs. PR.CIT, PANCHKULA

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in above terms

Bench: Us Raising The Following Grounds:

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

DCIT, C-1(1) , CHANDIGARH vs. M/S FIDELITY INFORMATION SERVICES INDIA PVT. LTD., CHANDIGARH

In the result, the cross-objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

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

548/- and the same was deposited while filing the modified return of income pursuant to APA. Given the said factual position, we therefore find that it is not a case where the AO while completing the assessment has levied the interest under Section 234B and 234C on the additional income so declared by the assessee in terms of the modified

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

SH. ARVAIL SINGH,SIRSA vs. PCIT, 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)

u/s 263 of the Act it is noted as under: “5.1. I have carefully examined the facts of the case and It is evident that the assessee has received interest on enhanced compensation during the assessment year under consideration which ought to be treated as "income from other sources" and should have been taxed accordingly, under the head "income from

SURJEET SINGH,SIRSA vs. PCIT, ROHTAK, 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)

u/s 263 of the Act it is noted as under: “5.1. I have carefully examined the facts of the case and It is evident that the assessee has received interest on enhanced compensation during the assessment year under consideration which ought to be treated as "income from other sources" and should have been taxed accordingly, under the head "income from

SH. PARAMJEET SINGH,SIRSA vs. PCIT, 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)

u/s 263 of the Act it is noted as under: “5.1. I have carefully examined the facts of the case and It is evident that the assessee has received interest on enhanced compensation during the assessment year under consideration which ought to be treated as "income from other sources" and should have been taxed accordingly, under the head "income from

M/S GANESH DASS HUF,SIRSA vs. PCIT, 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)

u/s 263 of the Act it is noted as under: “5.1. I have carefully examined the facts of the case and It is evident that the assessee has received interest on enhanced compensation during the assessment year under consideration which ought to be treated as "income from other sources" and should have been taxed accordingly, under the head "income from

DHUNI CHAND HUF,SIRSA vs. PCIT, 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)

u/s 263 of the Act it is noted as under: “5.1. I have carefully examined the facts of the case and It is evident that the assessee has received interest on enhanced compensation during the assessment year under consideration which ought to be treated as "income from other sources" and should have been taxed accordingly, under the head "income from

SH. RANDHIR SINGH,SIRSA vs. PCIT ROHTAK, 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)

u/s 263 of the Act it is noted as under: “5.1. I have carefully examined the facts of the case and It is evident that the assessee has received interest on enhanced compensation during the assessment year under consideration which ought to be treated as "income from other sources" and should have been taxed accordingly, under the head "income from

SH. KASHMIR SINGH SANDHA,SIRSA vs. PCIT, 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)

u/s 263 of the Act it is noted as under: “5.1. I have carefully examined the facts of the case and It is evident that the assessee has received interest on enhanced compensation during the assessment year under consideration which ought to be treated as "income from other sources" and should have been taxed accordingly, under the head "income from

SHRI MUKESH KUMAR,JAGADHARI vs. ITO-WARD-2, YAMUNA NAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shrir.L Negiआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.40/Chd/2020 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year :2014-15 Sh. Mukesh Kumar, The Ito, बनाम C/O Rajiv Goel & Associates, Ward-2, 179, Bank Road, Yamunanagar Ambala Cantt. "थायीलेखासं./Pan No. Agdpk9371P अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

section 147 of the Act. Thereafter, reassessment proceedings were initiated for the assessment years 2010-11 to 2013-14 and additions of Rs. 1,42,92,186/-, Rs. 93,37,171/-, Rs. 36,61,237/-, Rs. 68,230/- and Rs. 7,25,548/-were made in the assessment years 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 and 2013-14 respectively either

M/S GANESH BUILDERS,PANCHKULA vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the respective appeals and stay applications are disposed off in light of aforesaid directions

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

548 yards. In the seized paper, the size has been mentioned as 538 sq. yrds and the minor difference of 10 sq. yrds may be because of clerical error or because of the possible reason that size of plot no. 10 168 might be 10 sq. yards less. And the rate of Rs. 7000 has been applied

M/S LUXMI BUILDERS,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the respective appeals and stay applications are disposed off in light of aforesaid directions

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

548 yards. In the seized paper, the size has been mentioned as 538 sq. yrds and the minor difference of 10 sq. yrds may be because of clerical error or because of the possible reason that size of plot no. 10 168 might be 10 sq. yards less. And the rate of Rs. 7000 has been applied

ASTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, LUDHIANA, AAYAKAR BHAWAN vs. WARYAM STEEL CASTING PRIVATE LIMITED, KANGANWAL ROAD

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

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

147, computing the total income at Rs. 4,73,64,687/- by disallowing purchases deemed bogus. 3.1 The AO found that M/s Gauri Shankar Trading Co. (GSTC) was a fraudulent entity with no actual business, based on investigations by the DGGI, GST Intelligence, Delhi Zone, and the Income Tax Department’s Investigation Wing. Rahul Pratap Singh, the proprietor of GSTC

WARYAM STEEL CASTINGS PRIVATE LIMITED,LUDHIANA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, LUDHIANA

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

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

147, computing the total income at Rs. 4,73,64,687/- by disallowing purchases deemed bogus. 3.1 The AO found that M/s Gauri Shankar Trading Co. (GSTC) was a fraudulent entity with no actual business, based on investigations by the DGGI, GST Intelligence, Delhi Zone, and the Income Tax Department’s Investigation Wing. Rahul Pratap Singh, the proprietor of GSTC