DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. MANJIT KAUR, CHANDIGARH

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

41 to 44/CHD/2017) "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2012-13 Sh. Kulwant Singh. The DCIT, Central Circle-1, बनाम H.No. 1047, Sector 71, Chandigarh Mohali "थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: ABZPS4962R Appeal against the order of CIT(A)-3, Gurgaon dated 28.10.2016 आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 387/CHD/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. KULWANT SINGH, MOHALI

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

41 to 44/CHD/2017) "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2012-13 Sh. Kulwant Singh. The DCIT, Central Circle-1, बनाम H.No. 1047, Sector 71, Chandigarh Mohali "थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: ABZPS4962R Appeal against the order of CIT(A)-3, Gurgaon dated 28.10.2016 आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 387/CHD/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. PARAMJIT SINGH, MOHALI

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

41 to 44/CHD/2017) "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2012-13 Sh. Kulwant Singh. The DCIT, Central Circle-1, बनाम H.No. 1047, Sector 71, Chandigarh Mohali "थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: ABZPS4962R Appeal against the order of CIT(A)-3, Gurgaon dated 28.10.2016 आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 387/CHD/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. JASWANT KAUR, MOHALI

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

41 to 44/CHD/2017) "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2012-13 Sh. Kulwant Singh. The DCIT, Central Circle-1, बनाम H.No. 1047, Sector 71, Chandigarh Mohali "थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: ABZPS4962R Appeal against the order of CIT(A)-3, Gurgaon dated 28.10.2016 आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 387/CHD/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. KULWANT SINGH, MOHALI

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

41 to 44/CHD/2017) "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2012-13 Sh. Kulwant Singh. The DCIT, Central Circle-1, बनाम H.No. 1047, Sector 71, Chandigarh Mohali "थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: ABZPS4962R Appeal against the order of CIT(A)-3, Gurgaon dated 28.10.2016 आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 387/CHD/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year

EASTMAN INTERNATIONAL,LUDHIANA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

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

1) of the Act. It was demonstrated that there are no new credits which can be said to be unexplained which would attract section 68 not there is any extinguishment of liability which would attract section 41

SHRI GURU RAM DASS EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,MOHALI vs. PR.CIT(CENTRAL) GURGAON, AT CHANDIGARH

41,200 and Rs.2,80,75,400 paid to Sh. Rashpal Singh Dhaliwal and his wife Smt. Karamjit Kaur (Trustees of Chandigarh Educational Society) in form of salary and equivalent amount of salary received (Rs.5,29,44,200/- + Rs.2,07,50,000/-) by Sh. Satnam Singh Sandhu and his wife, Smt.Damandeep Kaur from Chandigarh Educational Society. h) Introduction of unexplained

CHANDIGARH EDUCATIONAL TRUST,MOHALI vs. PR.CIT-CENTRAL,GURGAON, AT CHANDIGARH

41,200 and Rs.2,80,75,400 paid to Sh. Rashpal Singh Dhaliwal and his wife Smt. Karamjit Kaur (Trustees of Chandigarh Educational Society) in form of salary and equivalent amount of salary received (Rs.5,29,44,200/- + Rs.2,07,50,000/-) by Sh. Satnam Singh Sandhu and his wife, Smt.Damandeep Kaur from Chandigarh Educational Society. h) Introduction of unexplained

CHANDIGARH EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,MOHALI vs. PR.CIT(CENTRAL)-GURGAON, AT CHANDIGARH

41,200 and Rs.2,80,75,400 paid to Sh. Rashpal Singh Dhaliwal and his wife Smt. Karamjit Kaur (Trustees of Chandigarh Educational Society) in form of salary and equivalent amount of salary received (Rs.5,29,44,200/- + Rs.2,07,50,000/-) by Sh. Satnam Singh Sandhu and his wife, Smt.Damandeep Kaur from Chandigarh Educational Society. h) Introduction of unexplained

INCOME TAX OFFICER, PARWANOO vs. DEEPAK KUMAR, NAHAN

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

1,47,17,937/-. 7. Being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). It was submitted that during the course of survey proceedings, the assessee surrendered additional business income of Rs. 2,61,69,869/- and same was accepted by the Survey party and later on, the assessee fled its return of income disclosing

WINSOME TEXTILE INDUSTRIES LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1), CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

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

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

68 of Income-tax Act, 1961? We find no merit in this Special Leave Petition for the simple reason that if the share application money is received by the assessee company from alleged bogus shareholders, whose names are given to the Assessing Officer, then the department is free to proceed to reopen their individual assessments in accordance with law. Hence

M/S CHANDIGARH LAWN TENNIS ASSOCIATION,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO (EXEMPTIONS), CHANDIGARH

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptaassessment Year : 2013-14 Chandigarh Lawn Tennis Vs. The Ito (Exemptions), Association, Ward, Chandigarh Sector 10, Chandigarh Pan No. Aaatc4943J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sh. Y.K. Sud, Ca Respondent By : Smt. Chanderkanta, Addl. Cit (On 22.3.2018) & Sh.Yoginder Mittal, Sr. Dr (On 13.7.2018) Date Of Hearing : 22.03.2018 & 13.7.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.07.2018

41. The crucial point for the entire discussion in the above case of ‘India Trade Promotion Organization v. DGIT (Exemptions)’ was relating to the interpretation of section 2(15) r.w.s. 10(23C) (iv) of the Income Tax Act. The Hon’ble High Court has observed that the expression “charitable purposes” in context of section10 (23C) (iv) has a reference

M/S IOL CHEMICALS AND PHARMACEUTICALS LTD.,LUDHIANA vs. ADDL. CIT, R-I, LUDHIANA

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

section 36(1)(iii) of the Act which was worked out @13% on Rs. 2,06,24,284/- 5. Being aggrieved the assessee carried the matter to the Ld. CIT(A) and submitted as under: GROUND No. 1 Disallowance of interest u/s 36(1)(iii) Regarding the disallowance of interest u/s 36(l)iii), it is submitted that

ARJESH KUMAR,PATIALA vs. ITO NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE , DELHI

Section 16 or Section 17 of the Act. We, therefore, hold that the statutory interest paid under Section 34 of the Act is interest paid for the delayed payment of the compensation amount and, therefore, is a revenue receipt liable to tax under the Income Tax Act." 9. This position of law has been consistently reiterated

INCOME TAX OFFICER, FATEHABAD vs. MAHESH NAGPAL, FATEHABAD

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

Section 16 or Section 17 of the Act. We, therefore, hold that the statutory interest paid under Section 34 of the Act is interest paid for the delayed payment of the compensation amount and, therefore, is a revenue receipt liable to tax under the Income Tax Act." 9. This position of law has been consistently reiterated

SH. AMARDEEP SINGH ATHWAL,YAMUNANAGAR vs. ITO, WARD-1, YAMUNANAGAR

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

Section 16 or Section 17 of the Act. We, therefore, hold that the statutory interest paid under Section 34 of the Act is interest paid for the delayed payment of the compensation amount and, therefore, is a revenue receipt liable to tax under the Income Tax Act." 9. This position of law has been consistently reiterated

SH. AMARDEEP SINGH ATHWAL,YAMUNANAGAR vs. ITO, WARD-1, YAMUNANAGAR

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

Section 16 or Section 17 of the Act. We, therefore, hold that the statutory interest paid under Section 34 of the Act is interest paid for the delayed payment of the compensation amount and, therefore, is a revenue receipt liable to tax under the Income Tax Act." 9. This position of law has been consistently reiterated

SAROJ CHAUDHARY BALA,PANCHKULA vs. ITO, WARD-4, PANCHKULA

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

Section 16 or Section 17 of the Act. We, therefore, hold that the statutory interest paid under Section 34 of the Act is interest paid for the delayed payment of the compensation amount and, therefore, is a revenue receipt liable to tax under the Income Tax Act." 9. This position of law has been consistently reiterated