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

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

163 of the Act were identical and, therefore, his arguments would be the same in those four appeals as well and the same were not being repeated for the sake of brevity. 5.0 In response, the Ld. CIT DR read out extensively from the impugned order passed by the ld PCIT and pointed out that it was apparent that

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

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

163 of the Act were identical and, therefore, his arguments would be the same in those four appeals as well and the same were not being repeated for the sake of brevity. 5.0 In response, the Ld. CIT DR read out extensively from the impugned order passed by the ld PCIT and pointed out that it was apparent that

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

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

163 of the Act were identical and, therefore, his arguments would be the same in those four appeals as well and the same were not being repeated for the sake of brevity. 5.0 In response, the Ld. CIT DR read out extensively from the impugned order passed by the ld PCIT and pointed out that it was apparent that

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

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

163 of the Act were identical and, therefore, his arguments would be the same in those four appeals as well and the same were not being repeated for the sake of brevity. 5.0 In response, the Ld. CIT DR read out extensively from the impugned order passed by the ld PCIT and pointed out that it was apparent that

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

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

163 of the Act were identical and, therefore, his arguments would be the same in those four appeals as well and the same were not being repeated for the sake of brevity. 5.0 In response, the Ld. CIT DR read out extensively from the impugned order passed by the ld PCIT and pointed out that it was apparent that

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

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

163 of the Act were identical and, therefore, his arguments would be the same in those four appeals as well and the same were not being repeated for the sake of brevity. 5.0 In response, the Ld. CIT DR read out extensively from the impugned order passed by the ld PCIT and pointed out that it was apparent that

M/S SHIV SHAKTI CONSTRUCTION,SANGRUR vs. PCIT, PATIALA

The appeals of the assessees stand allowed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

163 of the Act were identical and, therefore, his arguments would be the same in those four appeals as well and the same were not being repeated for the sake of brevity. 5.0 In response, the Ld. CIT DR read out extensively from the impugned order and pointed out that it was apparent that the AO had failed to make

M/S MAA BHAGWATI ENTERPRISES,SANGRUR vs. PCIT, PATIALA

The appeals of the assessees stand allowed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

163 of the Act were identical and, therefore, his arguments would be the same in those four appeals as well and the same were not being repeated for the sake of brevity. 5.0 In response, the Ld. CIT DR read out extensively from the impugned order and pointed out that it was apparent that the AO had failed to make

M/S OMKAR ENGINEER AND CONTRACTOR,SANGRUR vs. PCTI, PATIALA

The appeals of the assessees stand allowed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

163 of the Act were identical and, therefore, his arguments would be the same in those four appeals as well and the same were not being repeated for the sake of brevity. 5.0 In response, the Ld. CIT DR read out extensively from the impugned order and pointed out that it was apparent that the AO had failed to make

M/S OM CONTRACTOR AND ENGINEERS,SANGRUR vs. PCIT, PATIALA

The appeals of the assessees stand allowed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

163 of the Act were identical and, therefore, his arguments would be the same in those four appeals as well and the same were not being repeated for the sake of brevity. 5.0 In response, the Ld. CIT DR read out extensively from the impugned order and pointed out that it was apparent that the AO had failed to make

M/S SHUBHAM COTTON MILLS PVT. LTD.,ELLENABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE, SIRSA

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

163 Taxman 482 (Del) • Nathu Ram Prem Chand Vs. CIT 49 ITR 561 (All) • EMC Machine Works Vs. CIT 49 ITR 650 (All) • CIT Vs. Orissa Corporation (P) Ltd. 159 ITR 78 (SC) • State of Orissa Vs. Maharaja Shri B.P. Singh Deo 76 ITR 690(SC) • State of Kerala Vs. C. Velukutty 60 ITR 239 (SC) • Kachwala Germs

ITO, W-6(5), MOHALI vs. SMT. GURDEV KAUR, KHARAR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Disposal Of Appeal.”

transfer would amount to a gift liable to tax under the Gift Tax Act, 1958, but if the construction of sub-section (2) contended for on behalf of the Revenue were accepted, such difference would also be liable to be added as part of capital gains taxable under the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961. This would

AJMER SINGH,MOHALI vs. ITO, W-6(5), MOHAL

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Disposal Of Appeal.”

transfer would amount to a gift liable to tax under the Gift Tax Act, 1958, but if the construction of sub-section (2) contended for on behalf of the Revenue were accepted, such difference would also be liable to be added as part of capital gains taxable under the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961. This would

AJMER SINGH,MOHALI vs. ITO, W-6(5), MOHAL

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Disposal Of Appeal.”

transfer would amount to a gift liable to tax under the Gift Tax Act, 1958, but if the construction of sub-section (2) contended for on behalf of the Revenue were accepted, such difference would also be liable to be added as part of capital gains taxable under the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961. This would

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 The Hon'ble Apex

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 The Hon'ble Apex

SH. PARAMJEET SINGH,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 The Hon'ble Apex

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 The Hon'ble Apex