SH. JAI RAM,JAGADHARI vs. ITO, YAMUNANAGAR

In the result, both the appeal of different assessees are allowed

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

price is paid and the deed is delivered . In the percent case, from the statement of case itself as drawn up by the Tribunal, it is apparent that the parties had clearly intended that despite the execution and registration of sale deeds, transfer by way of sale will become effective only on payment of the entire consideration amount

SH. AMAR SINGH,JAGADHARI vs. ITO, YAMUNANAGAR

In the result, both the appeal of different assessees are allowed

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

price is paid and the deed is delivered . In the percent case, from the statement of case itself as drawn up by the Tribunal, it is apparent that the parties had clearly intended that despite the execution and registration of sale deeds, transfer by way of sale will become effective only on payment of the entire consideration amount

M/S HIND CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERS CONTRCTORS,SANGRUR vs. PR.CIT, PATIALA

In the result, all the appeals of the respective assessees stands allowed

68,578/- being remuneration and interest respectively paid to partners may not be disallowed for the reason that the assessee had failed to provide a copy of partnership deed in this regard. 2.7 In response, it was the assessee’s submission that it had carried out the work as a subcontractor and had filed the return of income u/s 44AD

M/S CHENAB CONSTRUCTION,SANGRUR vs. PCIT, PATIALA

In the result, all the appeals of the respective assessees stands allowed

68,578/- being remuneration and interest respectively paid to partners may not be disallowed for the reason that the assessee had failed to provide a copy of partnership deed in this regard. 2.7 In response, it was the assessee’s submission that it had carried out the work as a subcontractor and had filed the return of income u/s 44AD

M/S HIMALYAN CONSTRUCTION AND ENGINEERS,SANGRUR vs. PCIT, PATIALA

In the result, all the appeals of the respective assessees stands allowed

68,578/- being remuneration and interest respectively paid to partners may not be disallowed for the reason that the assessee had failed to provide a copy of partnership deed in this regard. 2.7 In response, it was the assessee’s submission that it had carried out the work as a subcontractor and had filed the return of income u/s 44AD

M/S ANAND ENGINEERS & CONTRACTORS,SANGURUR vs. PR.CIT, PATIALA

In the result, all the appeals of the respective assessees stands allowed

68,578/- being remuneration and interest respectively paid to partners may not be disallowed for the reason that the assessee had failed to provide a copy of partnership deed in this regard. 2.7 In response, it was the assessee’s submission that it had carried out the work as a subcontractor and had filed the return of income u/s 44AD

M/S AMAR CONTRUCTION AND ENGINEER ,SANGRUR vs. PCTI, PATIALA

In the result, all the appeals of the respective assessees stands allowed

68,578/- being remuneration and interest respectively paid to partners may not be disallowed for the reason that the assessee had failed to provide a copy of partnership deed in this regard. 2.7 In response, it was the assessee’s submission that it had carried out the work as a subcontractor and had filed the return of income u/s 44AD

M/S AMBEY ENGINEERS AND CONTRACTORS,NEW DELHI vs. PR.CIT, PATIALA

In the result, all the appeals of the respective assessees stands allowed

68,578/- being remuneration and interest respectively paid to partners may not be disallowed for the reason that the assessee had failed to provide a copy of partnership deed in this regard. 2.7 In response, it was the assessee’s submission that it had carried out the work as a subcontractor and had filed the return of income u/s 44AD

M/S GANGA CONSTRUCTIONS,SANGURUR vs. PCIT, PATIALA

In the result, all the appeals of the respective assessees stands allowed

68,578/- being remuneration and interest respectively paid to partners may not be disallowed for the reason that the assessee had failed to provide a copy of partnership deed in this regard. 2.7 In response, it was the assessee’s submission that it had carried out the work as a subcontractor and had filed the return of income u/s 44AD

M/S ADARSH CONSTRUCTIONS AND ENGINEERS,SANGRUR vs. PR.CIT, PATIALA

In the result, all the appeals of the respective assessees stands allowed

68,578/- being remuneration and interest respectively paid to partners may not be disallowed for the reason that the assessee had failed to provide a copy of partnership deed in this regard. 2.7 In response, it was the assessee’s submission that it had carried out the work as a subcontractor and had filed the return of income u/s 44AD

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

68 of the Act by ignoring the relevant specific facts and circumstances of the case and by relying on extraneous arguments and evidences, including in particular, circumstantial evidence, which has no bearing and applicability to the case. 3. That the Ld Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Gurgaon was not justified to uphold the action of the Ld. Assessing Officer

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

68 of the Act by ignoring the relevant specific facts and circumstances of the case and by relying on extraneous arguments and evidences, including in particular, circumstantial evidence, which has no bearing and applicability to the case. 3. That the Ld Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Gurgaon was not justified to uphold the action of the Ld. Assessing Officer

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

68 of the Act by ignoring the relevant specific facts and circumstances of the case and by relying on extraneous arguments and evidences, including in particular, circumstantial evidence, which has no bearing and applicability to the case. 3. That the Ld Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Gurgaon was not justified to uphold the action of the Ld. Assessing Officer

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

68 of the Act by ignoring the relevant specific facts and circumstances of the case and by relying on extraneous arguments and evidences, including in particular, circumstantial evidence, which has no bearing and applicability to the case. 3. That the Ld Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Gurgaon was not justified to uphold the action of the Ld. Assessing Officer

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

68 of the Act by ignoring the relevant specific facts and circumstances of the case and by relying on extraneous arguments and evidences, including in particular, circumstantial evidence, which has no bearing and applicability to the case. 3. That the Ld Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Gurgaon was not justified to uphold the action of the Ld. Assessing Officer

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

68 of the Act by ignoring the relevant specific facts and circumstances of the case and by relying on extraneous arguments and evidences, including in particular, circumstantial evidence, which has no bearing and applicability to the case. 3. That the Ld Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Gurgaon was not justified to uphold the action of the Ld. Assessing Officer

JANTA LAND PROMOTERS PVT LTD,MOHALI vs. THE PRINICIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,CHANDIGARH-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

68; and (v) alleged non-review of Transfer Pricing / MAT. 3. The Ld. AR had submitted that pursuant to the show cause notice issued by the Ld. PCIT the assessee had submitted the reply, which was reproduced at page 8 of the impugned order as under: 1) Issue No.2.1 at para 2 of the show cause notice: 2.1 The Assessing

SANJAY SINGAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

section 10(38) of the Act in respect of long-term capital gains earned on transfer of shares held in M/s Maa Jagdambe Trade Link Limited, as under: Name of No. of Purchase of shares Sale of shares Long term Share shares Date of Cost Price Date of Sale Price capital gain Sale purchase Maa 18.75.000 12.03.2013 Rs.37,50.000 Various