DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHANDIGARH vs. WINSOME TEXTILE INDUSTRIES LTD, CHANDIGARH

68 Income Tax Act, 1961 are without\nany basis and on the reliance of SEBI investigation of the lead manager to the\nissue, the SEBI report was also available on record as shown to the Authorised\nRepresentative of the assessee before the issue of the first notice of\nreassessment on 26.03.2017. As such, the assessment framed in respect of both

SANDEEP KUMAR SANSERWAL,YAMUNANAGAR vs. ITO WARD-4, YAMUNAGAR

In the result, the addition so made is hereby directed to be deleted

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

68,000 7.1 It was submitted that out of above sales of October & November 2016, Rs 34,69,780/- were taxable @ 5.25% as per Indirect tax in Haryana Vat. VAT was duly paid on above sales as well. Such sales are duly accepted by Haryana Vat Department & Copy of Haryana Vat assessment order has been placed as part

DSM SINOCHEM PHARMACEUTICALS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,NAWANSHAHR vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini, Vice- & Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं. 253/ चंडीगढ़/2016(िन.व. 2011-12)

68 2.56% 1.74 million Crores LC/Guarantee EUR 30 204 3.50% 7.14 million Crores Total 8.88 Your honour would appreciate from the above that the services availed by DSM India resulted in benefit to the assessee and indeed added economic and commercial value to the business of the assessee. In case these services were not provided by the AEs the assessee

M/S DSM SINOCHEM PHARMACEUTICALS INDIA PVT. LTD. ,TOANSA vs. DCIT, C-1(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini, Vice- & Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं. 253/ चंडीगढ़/2016(िन.व. 2011-12)

68 2.56% 1.74 million Crores LC/Guarantee EUR 30 204 3.50% 7.14 million Crores Total 8.88 Your honour would appreciate from the above that the services availed by DSM India resulted in benefit to the assessee and indeed added economic and commercial value to the business of the assessee. In case these services were not provided by the AEs the assessee

AUTHORGEN TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNJAB vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHANDIGARH-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Krinwant Sahay & Shri Paresh M. Joshiआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 541/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Authrogen Technologies Vs. The Pcit, बनाम Chandigarh-1, Private Limited, Chandigarh C-203, 8Th Floor, World Tech Power, Industrial Area, Phase Viii, Mohali "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aadca0494Q अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent (Physical Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri K M Gupta, Advocate & Shri Jaskaran Singh, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Rohit Sharma, Cit Dr

68 of the Act on the opening balance of securities premium of Rs. 6421.53 lacs is on March 31, 2017, which pertained to the previous assessment years and could not be brought to tax in the subject year by any stretch of imagination or under any provision of the Act. Non applicability of revision proceedings under Section

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHANDIGARH vs. JAMES HOTELS LTD, CHANDIGARH

Bench: The Said Resolution To Enhance Authorized Share Capital.

192 (SC) has duly held the view on the issue of levy of penalty in favour of the assessee. Thus, in view of the above submission, it was submitted that no penalty should be levied on the share application money received in cash. 5.5 Further, during the course of penalty proceedings, the Counsel of assessee filed another reply dated

M/S DIN DAYAL PURSOTAM LAL,SIRSA vs. PR.CIT, ROHTAK

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

68 ITD 65 CHD, and viii) Rupesh Chiman Lal V ITO, order dated 30.01.2017 in ITA Nos. 6179-6182/Mum/2016 13.5 Then, it is well settled that the assessee cannot be expected to be after the person with whom he has entered in the business transactions and the assessee's onus is to establish the identity of the party

M/S DIN DAYAL PURSOTAM LAL,SIRSA vs. PR.CIT, ROHTAK

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

68 ITD 65 CHD, and viii) Rupesh Chiman Lal V ITO, order dated 30.01.2017 in ITA Nos. 6179-6182/Mum/2016 13.5 Then, it is well settled that the assessee cannot be expected to be after the person with whom he has entered in the business transactions and the assessee's onus is to establish the identity of the party

M/S DIN DAYAL PURSOTAM LAL,SIRSA vs. PR.CIT, ROHTAK

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

68 ITD 65 CHD, and viii) Rupesh Chiman Lal V ITO, order dated 30.01.2017 in ITA Nos. 6179-6182/Mum/2016 13.5 Then, it is well settled that the assessee cannot be expected to be after the person with whom he has entered in the business transactions and the assessee's onus is to establish the identity of the party

SOCIETY FOR EDUCATION AND RESEARCH,JAGADHRI, YAMUNANGAR vs. DCIT(E) (CIRCLE-2), CHANDIGARH

In the result, ground no. 2 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed

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

68 of the Act and as against the returned income of NIL, the reassessed income was determined at Rs. 34,50,350/-. 5. Being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who has since sustained the said findings and the appeal of the assessee has been dismissed. Against the said order, the assessee

SMT. PARAMJEET KAUR,LUDHIANA vs. JCIT, RANGE VII, LUDHIANA

In the result all the appeals of the Assessee’s are allowed

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

192-CHD-2018 for A.Y. 2011-12 1. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the imposition of penalty of Rs. 61,49,385/- under section 271D of the Act which is arbitrary and unjustified. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the reasonable cause pleaded before him in the correct perspective

SH. MOHINDER PAL SINGH,LUDHIANA vs. ADDL. CIT, R-VII, LUDHIANA

In the result all the appeals of the Assessee’s are allowed

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

192-CHD-2018 for A.Y. 2011-12 1. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the imposition of penalty of Rs. 61,49,385/- under section 271D of the Act which is arbitrary and unjustified. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the reasonable cause pleaded before him in the correct perspective

SH. RAMNEEK SEHGAL,LUDHIANA vs. JCIT, RANGE VII, LUDHIANA

In the result all the appeals of the Assessee’s are allowed

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

192-CHD-2018 for A.Y. 2011-12 1. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the imposition of penalty of Rs. 61,49,385/- under section 271D of the Act which is arbitrary and unjustified. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the reasonable cause pleaded before him in the correct perspective

SH. MOHINDER PAL SINGH,LUDHIANA vs. ADDL. CIT, R-VII, LUDHIANA

In the result all the appeals of the Assessee’s are allowed

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

192-CHD-2018 for A.Y. 2011-12 1. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the imposition of penalty of Rs. 61,49,385/- under section 271D of the Act which is arbitrary and unjustified. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the reasonable cause pleaded before him in the correct perspective

SH. RAMNEEK SEHGAL,LUDHIANA vs. JCIT, RANGE VII, LUDHIANA

In the result all the appeals of the Assessee’s are allowed

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

192-CHD-2018 for A.Y. 2011-12 1. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the imposition of penalty of Rs. 61,49,385/- under section 271D of the Act which is arbitrary and unjustified. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the reasonable cause pleaded before him in the correct perspective

SHRI PRINCEPREETJIT SINGH,RANJIT NAGAR vs. PR.CIT-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

192 Long Term Capital Gain (point 2) (3) (1)-(2) Rs 3,14,68,558 Amount invested in purchase of (4) Rs 2,83,06,710 agricultural land and allowable as deduction u/s 54B Amount invested in 54F (point 3) (5) Rs 38,18,260 Amount Eligible for Exemption (6) (3) ∗(5) Rs 37,14,941 u/s 54F (1) Total

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)

section 2 of section 56, clause(iv) in section 57 and clause (b) in Section 145A w.e.f. 01.04.2010. From the assessment year 2010-11 onwards, the amount of compensation or enhanced compensation is taxable as "income from other sources" after allowing deduction of a sum equal to 50% of such income in the year of receipt

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)

section 2 of section 56, clause(iv) in section 57 and clause (b) in Section 145A w.e.f. 01.04.2010. From the assessment year 2010-11 onwards, the amount of compensation or enhanced compensation is taxable as "income from other sources" after allowing deduction of a sum equal to 50% of such income in the year of receipt

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)

section 2 of section 56, clause(iv) in section 57 and clause (b) in Section 145A w.e.f. 01.04.2010. From the assessment year 2010-11 onwards, the amount of compensation or enhanced compensation is taxable as "income from other sources" after allowing deduction of a sum equal to 50% of such income in the year of receipt