SH. ARVAIL 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)

391-400 of JPB). xi) ITA No. 2741/D/2024 dated 8.1.2025 Babu Lal vs. ITO. (Page 401-419 of JPB). 10 That further in the impugned order passed u/s 263 of the Act it is noted as under: “5.1. I have carefully examined the facts of the case and It is evident that the assessee has received interest on enhanced compensation

SH. KASHMIR SINGH SANDHA,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)

391-400 of JPB). xi) ITA No. 2741/D/2024 dated 8.1.2025 Babu Lal vs. ITO. (Page 401-419 of JPB). 10 That further in the impugned order passed u/s 263 of the Act it is noted as under: “5.1. I have carefully examined the facts of the case and It is evident that the assessee has received interest on enhanced compensation

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)

391-400 of JPB). xi) ITA No. 2741/D/2024 dated 8.1.2025 Babu Lal vs. ITO. (Page 401-419 of JPB). 10 That further in the impugned order passed u/s 263 of the Act it is noted as under: “5.1. I have carefully examined the facts of the case and It is evident that the assessee has received interest on enhanced compensation

M/S GANESH DASS 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)

391-400 of JPB). xi) ITA No. 2741/D/2024 dated 8.1.2025 Babu Lal vs. ITO. (Page 401-419 of JPB). 10 That further in the impugned order passed u/s 263 of the Act it is noted as under: “5.1. I have carefully examined the facts of the case and It is evident that the assessee has received interest on enhanced compensation

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)

391-400 of JPB). xi) ITA No. 2741/D/2024 dated 8.1.2025 Babu Lal vs. ITO. (Page 401-419 of JPB). 10 That further in the impugned order passed u/s 263 of the Act it is noted as under: “5.1. I have carefully examined the facts of the case and It is evident that the assessee has received interest on enhanced compensation

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

Bench: S/Shri N.K. Saini, Vice- & Rajpal Yadav, Vice-

391 In the cases of Shri Sanjay Singhal and Others Vs. DCIT, Chandigarh (9 Appeals) 6 6. Before we advert to the grounds of appeal taken by the appellants, it is pertinent to note that the Department has filed an application under Rule 29 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 under the signature of Shri G.C. Srivastava, Special

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

Bench: S/Shri N.K. Saini, Vice- & Rajpal Yadav, Vice-

391 In the cases of Shri Sanjay Singhal and Others Vs. DCIT, Chandigarh (9 Appeals) 6 6. Before we advert to the grounds of appeal taken by the appellants, it is pertinent to note that the Department has filed an application under Rule 29 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 under the signature of Shri G.C. Srivastava, Special

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

Bench: S/Shri N.K. Saini, Vice- & Rajpal Yadav, Vice-

391 In the cases of Shri Sanjay Singhal and Others Vs. DCIT, Chandigarh (9 Appeals) 6 6. Before we advert to the grounds of appeal taken by the appellants, it is pertinent to note that the Department has filed an application under Rule 29 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 under the signature of Shri G.C. Srivastava, Special

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

Bench: S/Shri N.K. Saini, Vice- & Rajpal Yadav, Vice-

391 In the cases of Shri Sanjay Singhal and Others Vs. DCIT, Chandigarh (9 Appeals) 6 6. Before we advert to the grounds of appeal taken by the appellants, it is pertinent to note that the Department has filed an application under Rule 29 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 under the signature of Shri G.C. Srivastava, Special

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

Bench: S/Shri N.K. Saini, Vice- & Rajpal Yadav, Vice-

391 In the cases of Shri Sanjay Singhal and Others Vs. DCIT, Chandigarh (9 Appeals) 6 6. Before we advert to the grounds of appeal taken by the appellants, it is pertinent to note that the Department has filed an application under Rule 29 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 under the signature of Shri G.C. Srivastava, Special

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

Bench: S/Shri N.K. Saini, Vice- & Rajpal Yadav, Vice-

391 In the cases of Shri Sanjay Singhal and Others Vs. DCIT, Chandigarh (9 Appeals) 6 6. Before we advert to the grounds of appeal taken by the appellants, it is pertinent to note that the Department has filed an application under Rule 29 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 under the signature of Shri G.C. Srivastava, Special

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

Bench: S/Shri N.K. Saini, Vice- & Rajpal Yadav, Vice-

391 In the cases of Shri Sanjay Singhal and Others Vs. DCIT, Chandigarh (9 Appeals) 6 6. Before we advert to the grounds of appeal taken by the appellants, it is pertinent to note that the Department has filed an application under Rule 29 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 under the signature of Shri G.C. Srivastava, Special

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

Bench: S/Shri N.K. Saini, Vice- & Rajpal Yadav, Vice-

391 In the cases of Shri Sanjay Singhal and Others Vs. DCIT, Chandigarh (9 Appeals) 6 6. Before we advert to the grounds of appeal taken by the appellants, it is pertinent to note that the Department has filed an application under Rule 29 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 under the signature of Shri G.C. Srivastava, Special

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

Bench: S/Shri N.K. Saini, Vice- & Rajpal Yadav, Vice-

391 In the cases of Shri Sanjay Singhal and Others Vs. DCIT, Chandigarh (9 Appeals) 6 6. Before we advert to the grounds of appeal taken by the appellants, it is pertinent to note that the Department has filed an application under Rule 29 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 under the signature of Shri G.C. Srivastava, Special

M/S JOSAN INDUSTRIES,JALALABAD vs. DCIT, CL-1, INTL. TAXATION, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed as indicated

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 64 To 66/Chd/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Josan Industries, Vs. The Dcit Circle-1, बनाम Jalalabad, International Taxation, H.O., Guruharshai, Chandigarh Punjab "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. Aaafj7294F अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

transferring the jurisdiction of the case, which direction has been complied with by producing the section 127 order dated 5.3.2002. 9. The ld. DR has placed reliance on the order of the DRP in this regard, contending that as correctly taken note of by the ld. DRP, the Assessee had itself mentioned its status as “Non-Resident” in its return

M/S JOSAN INDUSTRIES,JALALABAD vs. DCIT, CL-1, INTL. TAXATION, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed as indicated

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 64 To 66/Chd/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Josan Industries, Vs. The Dcit Circle-1, बनाम Jalalabad, International Taxation, H.O., Guruharshai, Chandigarh Punjab "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. Aaafj7294F अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

transferring the jurisdiction of the case, which direction has been complied with by producing the section 127 order dated 5.3.2002. 9. The ld. DR has placed reliance on the order of the DRP in this regard, contending that as correctly taken note of by the ld. DRP, the Assessee had itself mentioned its status as “Non-Resident” in its return

M/S JOSAN INDUSTRIES,JALALABAD vs. DCIT, CL-1, INTL. TAXATION, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed as indicated

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 64 To 66/Chd/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Josan Industries, Vs. The Dcit Circle-1, बनाम Jalalabad, International Taxation, H.O., Guruharshai, Chandigarh Punjab "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. Aaafj7294F अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

transferring the jurisdiction of the case, which direction has been complied with by producing the section 127 order dated 5.3.2002. 9. The ld. DR has placed reliance on the order of the DRP in this regard, contending that as correctly taken note of by the ld. DRP, the Assessee had itself mentioned its status as “Non-Resident” in its return