ANUPAM,BARNALA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BARNALA

In the result, Assessee’s appeal is allowed

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

3. That Section 1 of the Taxation Laws (Second) Amendment Act 2016 reads as under :- (1) This Act may be called the Taxation Laws (Second Amendment) Act, 2016. (2) Save as otherwise provided in this Act, it shall come into force at once. The words used in the Act "at once" means, it will come into force immediately

SMT. GINNY SOIN,LUDHIANA vs. ACIT, CC-II, LUDHIANA

The appeals are partly allowed

249 of Income Tax Act,\nwhich provides powers to the ld. Commissioner to condone\nthe delay in filing the appeal before the Commissioner.\nSimilarly, it has been used in section 5 of Indian Limitation\nAct, 1963. Whenever interpretation and construction of this\nexpression has fallen for consideration before Hon'ble High\nCourt as well as before

SH. DINESH SOIN,LUDHIANA vs. ACIT, LUDHIANA

The appeals are partly allowed

249 of Income Tax Act,\nwhich provides powers to the ld. Commissioner to condone\nthe delay in filing the appeal before the Commissioner.\nSimilarly, it has been used in section 5 of Indian Limitation\nAct, 1963. Whenever interpretation and construction of this\nexpression has fallen for consideration before Hon'ble High\nCourt as well as before

SMT. GINNY SOIN,LUDHIANA vs. ACIT, CC-II, LUDHIANA

The appeals are partly allowed

249 of Income Tax Act,\nwhich provides powers to the ld. Commissioner to condone\nthe delay in filing the appeal before the Commissioner.\nSimilarly, it has been used in section 5 of Indian Limitation\nAct, 1963. Whenever interpretation and construction of this\nexpression has fallen for consideration before Hon'ble High\nCourt as well as before

DCIT, C-1, (E), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S MANAV MANGAL SOCIETY, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the department are dismissed

68 8 4,94,000 3,51,451 D/o Shri R.K. Chhabra, # 3085 Sector 21 D, Chandigarh Sanjay Sardana Salary Rent Interest Salary Rent Interest Salary Rent Interest 6. S/o Shri Gian

DCIT, C-1, (E), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S MANAV MANGAL SOCIETY, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the department are dismissed

68 8 4,94,000 3,51,451 D/o Shri R.K. Chhabra, # 3085 Sector 21 D, Chandigarh Sanjay Sardana Salary Rent Interest Salary Rent Interest Salary Rent Interest 6. S/o Shri Gian

DCIT, C-1, (E), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S MANAV MANGAL SOCIETY, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the department are dismissed

68 8 4,94,000 3,51,451 D/o Shri R.K. Chhabra, # 3085 Sector 21 D, Chandigarh Sanjay Sardana Salary Rent Interest Salary Rent Interest Salary Rent Interest 6. S/o Shri Gian

M/S MANAV MANGAL SOCIETY,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, C-1, (E), CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the department are dismissed

68 8 4,94,000 3,51,451 D/o Shri R.K. Chhabra, # 3085 Sector 21 D, Chandigarh Sanjay Sardana Salary Rent Interest Salary Rent Interest Salary Rent Interest 6. S/o Shri Gian

DCIT,CIRCLE-1(EXEMPTION), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S MANAV MANGAL SCHOOL( MANAV MANGAL SOCIETY), CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the department are dismissed

68 8 4,94,000 3,51,451 D/o Shri R.K. Chhabra, # 3085 Sector 21 D, Chandigarh Sanjay Sardana Salary Rent Interest Salary Rent Interest Salary Rent Interest 6. S/o Shri Gian

DCIT, C-1, (E), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S MANAV MANGAL SOCIETY, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the department are dismissed

68 8 4,94,000 3,51,451 D/o Shri R.K. Chhabra, # 3085 Sector 21 D, Chandigarh Sanjay Sardana Salary Rent Interest Salary Rent Interest Salary Rent Interest 6. S/o Shri Gian

DCIT, C-1, (E), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S MANAV MANGAL SOCIETY, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the department are dismissed

68 8 4,94,000 3,51,451 D/o Shri R.K. Chhabra, # 3085 Sector 21 D, Chandigarh Sanjay Sardana Salary Rent Interest Salary Rent Interest Salary Rent Interest 6. S/o Shri Gian

M/S MANAV MANGAL SOCIETY,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, C-1, (E), CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the department are dismissed

68 8 4,94,000 3,51,451 D/o Shri R.K. Chhabra, # 3085 Sector 21 D, Chandigarh Sanjay Sardana Salary Rent Interest Salary Rent Interest Salary Rent Interest 6. S/o Shri Gian

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) was filed by the Market Committee, Dabwali, before the AO, stating that as per their ITA 146,147 & 148/CHD/2021 A.Y. 2011-12, 2015-16 & 2016-17 13 office record available, there was no firm registered as M/s Gaja Nand Pardeep Kumar, Shop No.209, New Grain Market, Dabwali during the year 2010-11. On 11.12.2018, a reply

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) was filed by the Market Committee, Dabwali, before the AO, stating that as per their ITA 146,147 & 148/CHD/2021 A.Y. 2011-12, 2015-16 & 2016-17 13 office record available, there was no firm registered as M/s Gaja Nand Pardeep Kumar, Shop No.209, New Grain Market, Dabwali during the year 2010-11. On 11.12.2018, a reply

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) was filed by the Market Committee, Dabwali, before the AO, stating that as per their ITA 146,147 & 148/CHD/2021 A.Y. 2011-12, 2015-16 & 2016-17 13 office record available, there was no firm registered as M/s Gaja Nand Pardeep Kumar, Shop No.209, New Grain Market, Dabwali during the year 2010-11. On 11.12.2018, a reply

SJVN LIMITED,SHIMLA HIMACHAL PRADESH vs. ACIT , SHIMLA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

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

68,03,40,638/-. 3. Deduction u/s 80IA has not been considered while working out the Gross Total Income as per normal provisions of Income Tax. 4. Credit u/s 115JAA has been taken as Rs. 55,49,51,164/- instead of Rs. 90,64,10,578/-. 6. The application so filed by the assessee u/s 154 was considered and partly

A.B. SUGARS LIMITED,PUNJAB vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1, CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

section 80-IA{4)(iv) is also stated at Rs. 23,94,34,249/- at Point No. 30. Annexure 2 of our Reply to TPO provides with the Computation of the company profit in which it can be observed that company claimed 100% deduction of the taxable profit of Power Division amounting to Rs. 23,94,34,249/- which

A.B. SUGARS LIMITED,PUNJAB 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)

section 80-IA{4)(iv) is also stated at Rs. 23,94,34,249/- at Point No. 30. Annexure 2 of our Reply to TPO provides with the Computation of the company profit in which it can be observed that company claimed 100% deduction of the taxable profit of Power Division amounting to Rs. 23,94,34,249/- which

SAUGAAT,AMBALA CANTT vs. ITO, WARD 4, AMBALA CANTT. (ASSESSMENT UNIT), AMBALA CANTT

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

68 whereas the same pertain to Sh. Hemant Batra proprietor of M/s Saugaat and not appellant firm. 5 That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) gravelly erred in upholding the action of the Id. Assessing Officer who had made addition of Rs. 2,08,023/-as unexplained money under Section