SMT. URMILA GARG,SANGRUR vs. ITO, WARD, SANGRUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee’s are allowed

105 of the Acquisition Act of 2013 (as amended), the provision of the Acquisition Act of 2013 relating to the determination of compensation in accordance with the First Schedule, rehabilitation and resettlement in accordance with the Second Schedule and infrastructure amenities in accordance with the Third Schedule have only been applied in the NH Act of 1956 and Section

SHRI SATISH KUMAR,SANGRUR vs. ITO, WARD, SANGRUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee’s are allowed

105 of the Acquisition Act of 2013 (as amended), the provision of the Acquisition Act of 2013 relating to the determination of compensation in accordance with the First Schedule, rehabilitation and resettlement in accordance with the Second Schedule and infrastructure amenities in accordance with the Third Schedule have only been applied in the NH Act of 1956 and Section

TARLOCHAN SINGH ,BHAWANIGARH vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, PATIALA

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

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

68 of Income Tax Act 1961 but if such income from undisclosed sources, though, invested had not been recorded in the assessee's books, than such income is liable to be assessed in terms of section 69 of Income Tax Act 1961. vii. In Roshan Lal Madan VS CIT 245 ITR (AT) 36 (Chandigarh) AND Jagmohan Ram Ram Chandra

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, AAYAKAR BHAWAN vs. ROCKMAN INDUSTRIES LIMITED, -

In the result order of CIT(A) is sustained as passed and the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

68,105/-. The Assessing Officer was of the view that the interest expense on assets which have not been put to use for business purposes cannot be allowed as revenue expenses in view of provision of section

DCIT CIRCLE-4, LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA vs. ROCKMAN INDUSTRIES LTD, LUDHIANA

In the result order of CIT(A) is sustained as passed and the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

68,105/-. The Assessing Officer was of the view that the interest expense on assets which have not been put to use for business purposes cannot be allowed as revenue expenses in view of provision of section

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, , AAYAKAR BHAWAN vs. ROCKMAN INDUSTRIES LIMITED, -

In the result order of CIT(A) is sustained as passed and the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

68,105/-. The Assessing Officer was of the view that the interest expense on assets which have not been put to use for business purposes cannot be allowed as revenue expenses in view of provision of section

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, LUDHIANA, - vs. ROCKMAN INDUSTRIES LTD, -

In the result order of CIT(A) is sustained as passed and the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

68,105/-. The Assessing Officer was of the view that the interest expense on assets which have not been put to use for business purposes cannot be allowed as revenue expenses in view of provision of section

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, AAYAKAR BHAWAN vs. ROCKMAN INDUSTRIES LIMITED, -

In the result order of CIT(A) is sustained as passed and the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

68,105/-. The Assessing Officer was of the view that the interest expense on assets which have not been put to use for business purposes cannot be allowed as revenue expenses in view of provision of section

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4,, AAYAKAR BHAWAN vs. ROCKMAN INDUSTRIES LIMITED, -

In the result order of CIT(A) is sustained as passed and the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

68,105/-. The Assessing Officer was of the view that the interest expense on assets which have not been put to use for business purposes cannot be allowed as revenue expenses in view of provision of section

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, LUDHIANA, AAYAKAR BHAWAN vs. ROCKMAN INDUSTRIES LIMITED, -

In the result order of CIT(A) is sustained as passed and the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

68,105/-. The Assessing Officer was of the view that the interest expense on assets which have not been put to use for business purposes cannot be allowed as revenue expenses in view of provision of section

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AAYAKAR BHAWAN vs. ROCKMAN INDUSTRIES LIMITED, FOCAL POINT

In the result order of CIT(A) is sustained as passed and the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

68,105/-. The Assessing Officer was of the view that the interest expense on assets which have not been put to use for business purposes cannot be allowed as revenue expenses in view of provision of section

SH. SANJAY SINGAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

Bench: S/Shri N.K. Saini, Vice- & Rajpal Yadav, Vice-

105 636,728,415 1,331,710,220 Smt. Aarti Singal Particulars A.Y. 2011-12 A.Y. 2013-14 A.Y. 2014-15 Total 835,373,595 1,604,185,445 Total Sale proceeds u/s 68 130,872,875 637,938,975 (on a/c of alleged bogus LTCG} 6.5% of LTCG u/s 69C towards alleged commission expenses

SH. SANJAY SINGAL HUF,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

Bench: S/Shri N.K. Saini, Vice- & Rajpal Yadav, Vice-

105 636,728,415 1,331,710,220 Smt. Aarti Singal Particulars A.Y. 2011-12 A.Y. 2013-14 A.Y. 2014-15 Total 835,373,595 1,604,185,445 Total Sale proceeds u/s 68 130,872,875 637,938,975 (on a/c of alleged bogus LTCG} 6.5% of LTCG u/s 69C towards alleged commission expenses

SH. ANIKET SINGAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

Bench: S/Shri N.K. Saini, Vice- & Rajpal Yadav, Vice-

105 636,728,415 1,331,710,220 Smt. Aarti Singal Particulars A.Y. 2011-12 A.Y. 2013-14 A.Y. 2014-15 Total 835,373,595 1,604,185,445 Total Sale proceeds u/s 68 130,872,875 637,938,975 (on a/c of alleged bogus LTCG} 6.5% of LTCG u/s 69C towards alleged commission expenses

SH. SANJAY SINGAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

Bench: S/Shri N.K. Saini, Vice- & Rajpal Yadav, Vice-

105 636,728,415 1,331,710,220 Smt. Aarti Singal Particulars A.Y. 2011-12 A.Y. 2013-14 A.Y. 2014-15 Total 835,373,595 1,604,185,445 Total Sale proceeds u/s 68 130,872,875 637,938,975 (on a/c of alleged bogus LTCG} 6.5% of LTCG u/s 69C towards alleged commission expenses

SH. SANJAY SINGAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

Bench: S/Shri N.K. Saini, Vice- & Rajpal Yadav, Vice-

105 636,728,415 1,331,710,220 Smt. Aarti Singal Particulars A.Y. 2011-12 A.Y. 2013-14 A.Y. 2014-15 Total 835,373,595 1,604,185,445 Total Sale proceeds u/s 68 130,872,875 637,938,975 (on a/c of alleged bogus LTCG} 6.5% of LTCG u/s 69C towards alleged commission expenses

SH. ANIKET SINGAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

Bench: S/Shri N.K. Saini, Vice- & Rajpal Yadav, Vice-

105 636,728,415 1,331,710,220 Smt. Aarti Singal Particulars A.Y. 2011-12 A.Y. 2013-14 A.Y. 2014-15 Total 835,373,595 1,604,185,445 Total Sale proceeds u/s 68 130,872,875 637,938,975 (on a/c of alleged bogus LTCG} 6.5% of LTCG u/s 69C towards alleged commission expenses

SMT. AARTI SINGAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

Bench: S/Shri N.K. Saini, Vice- & Rajpal Yadav, Vice-

105 636,728,415 1,331,710,220 Smt. Aarti Singal Particulars A.Y. 2011-12 A.Y. 2013-14 A.Y. 2014-15 Total 835,373,595 1,604,185,445 Total Sale proceeds u/s 68 130,872,875 637,938,975 (on a/c of alleged bogus LTCG} 6.5% of LTCG u/s 69C towards alleged commission expenses

SMT. AARTI SINGAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

Bench: S/Shri N.K. Saini, Vice- & Rajpal Yadav, Vice-

105 636,728,415 1,331,710,220 Smt. Aarti Singal Particulars A.Y. 2011-12 A.Y. 2013-14 A.Y. 2014-15 Total 835,373,595 1,604,185,445 Total Sale proceeds u/s 68 130,872,875 637,938,975 (on a/c of alleged bogus LTCG} 6.5% of LTCG u/s 69C towards alleged commission expenses