JATIN GARG,CHANDIGARH vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC-2,, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

transferred to Sh. Sahil Singla. During assessment proceedings and search operation in the cases of Sh. Sanjit Singh Randhawa and Sh. Sahil Singla, it was held that Sh. Sanjit Singh Randhawa and Sh. Sahil Singla invested the money taken from different person, into Sand Mining business. The entire modus operandi was designed in a such away so that Sh. Sahil

SANJEEV KUMAR KATHURIA,YAMUNA NAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 , YAMUNANAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

69,52,490/-. The case was selected for complete scrutiny on the issue of 'Share Capital/Other Capital'. The assessee had sold a residential property, 139, Masjid Moth, Uday Park, New Delhi, measuring 180 sq.m. for Rs. 5,01,00,000/- during the previous year 2017-18. Long Term Capital Gain on the above sale was declared

DESH MITTER GAIND,PANCHKULA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, PANCHKULA, PANCHKULA, HARYANA

Bench: This Tribunal. The Assessee Is Aggrieved By The Order Of Cit(A) Bearing No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-

transfer. " In view of the above, the calculation of short term capital gain u/s 48 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is as under:- 1. Sale price (Assessed by Stamp Valuation Authority) 3,16,20,230/- Less: Sale Expenses 4,84,000/- 2. 3 . Net Sale Consideration 3,11,36,230/- 4 . Less: Sale price 2,32,69

SH. LACHHMAN DASS BANSAL,BARNALA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, PATIALA

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

transferred to Central Circle, Patiala vide notice, dated 21.10.20202. The assessee also requested vide letter, dated 04.11.2020 for copies of the statements recorded during survey, stock list as drawn and other documents. Thereafter, for the first time after more than 3 years, the notice was received from the Assessing Officer, Central Circle, Patiala, and the request was made

DCIT, C-1(1) , CHANDIGARH vs. M/S FIDELITY INFORMATION SERVICES INDIA PVT. LTD., CHANDIGARH

In the result, the cross-objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

Transfer Pricing Study is attached at pages 131 of the paperbook. Thus, perusal of the same makes it evident that the revenue and income of the Assessee company is based on its cost. 9.4 It was submitted that the Assessee company is a cost-plus entity where all expenses are reimbursed with an additional mark-up and added

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHANDIGARH vs. JAMES HOTELS LTD, CHANDIGARH

Bench: The Said Resolution To Enhance Authorized Share Capital.

Transfer Pricing Officer and thereafter the Ld. AO changed the nature of transaction from share application money and treated it as loan on which notional interest was computed. Hon'ble ITAT held that AO has no power to reclassify the transaction from the share application money to loan. 12.18 It was further submitted that while levying the penalty, Additional

MAXPORT INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

price fluctuations. The reliance in\nthis respect can be placed on the following decisions:\n“(i) [Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Kolkata v. Narula\nEducational Trust [2021] 126 taxmann.com 158 (Kolkata - Trib.)\n(ii) Champaklal S. Kasat v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Cent. Cir. 1(3),\nAhmedabad [2017] 82 taxmann.com 243 (Ahmedabad - Trib

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 which is material. In the case of CIT vs. Medical Trust Hospital & Ors. (2008) 220 CTR (Ker) 166, it was held that Purchaser having admitted in his statement under s. 132(4) that he purchased the land and building from assessee for Rs. 71 lacs as against Rs. 30 lacs declared in sale document, having included the differential amount

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

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Disposal Of Appeal.”

transfer which is material. In the case of CIT vs. Medical Trust Hospital & Ors. (2008) 220 CTR (Ker) 166, it was held that Purchaser having admitted in his statement under s. 132(4) that he purchased the land and building from assessee for Rs. 71 lacs as against Rs. 30 lacs declared in sale document, having included the differential amount

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

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Disposal Of Appeal.”

transfer which is material. In the case of CIT vs. Medical Trust Hospital & Ors. (2008) 220 CTR (Ker) 166, it was held that Purchaser having admitted in his statement under s. 132(4) that he purchased the land and building from assessee for Rs. 71 lacs as against Rs. 30 lacs declared in sale document, having included the differential amount

SHRI KRISHAN KUMAR JALAN,BANGALORE vs. ITO, W-1, SIRSA

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

prices of the scrip etc. In the\nabove cases of Punjab & Haryana High Court suspicion about sham\nnature of transaction was there and there be no evidence about it. But in\nthe instant case there is an elaborate discussion about sham and make\nbelief nature of transaction of transfer of capital asset. There are\nevidences and the circumstances

ACIT,CIRCLE--2(1), CHANDIGARH vs. CSJ INFRASTRUCTURE PVT.LTD, CHANDIGARH

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed and that of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 131,132 /Chd/2020 "नधा"रण वष" / A.Y.: 2014-15, 2015-16, M/S Csj Infrastructure Pvt.Ltd., The Acit, C/O C.A. Ajay Kumar Jain, Vs Circle 2(1), Sco 80-81, 4Th Floor, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh. Chandigarh. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aaccc8021G अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 146, 147/Chd/2020 "नधा"रण वष" / A.Y.: 2014-15, 2015-16, The Acit, Vs M/S Csj Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Circle 2(1), C/O C.A. Ajay Kumar Jain, Chandigarh. Sco 80-81, 4Th Floor, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aaccc8021G अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ajay Jain, Ca Revenue By : Shri Manav Bansal, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 19.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.05.2025 Physical Hearing O R D E R

Price + Stamp Duty & Registration Charges 3.1 The Vendee has made a payment of Rs.2,60,00,000/- vide cheque No. 023655 on 25.01.2011. There was some dispute between the assessee and the vendee and ultimately Sale Deed was executed during the Accounting Year relevant to assessment year 2014-15. The ld. AO has confronted the assessee qua Section 43CA

CSJ INFRASTRUCTURE PVT.LTD,CHANDIGARH vs. ACIT,CIRCLE--2(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed and that of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 131,132 /Chd/2020 "नधा"रण वष" / A.Y.: 2014-15, 2015-16, M/S Csj Infrastructure Pvt.Ltd., The Acit, C/O C.A. Ajay Kumar Jain, Vs Circle 2(1), Sco 80-81, 4Th Floor, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh. Chandigarh. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aaccc8021G अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 146, 147/Chd/2020 "नधा"रण वष" / A.Y.: 2014-15, 2015-16, The Acit, Vs M/S Csj Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Circle 2(1), C/O C.A. Ajay Kumar Jain, Chandigarh. Sco 80-81, 4Th Floor, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aaccc8021G अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ajay Jain, Ca Revenue By : Shri Manav Bansal, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 19.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.05.2025 Physical Hearing O R D E R

Price + Stamp Duty & Registration Charges 3.1 The Vendee has made a payment of Rs.2,60,00,000/- vide cheque No. 023655 on 25.01.2011. There was some dispute between the assessee and the vendee and ultimately Sale Deed was executed during the Accounting Year relevant to assessment year 2014-15. The ld. AO has confronted the assessee qua Section 43CA

CSJ INFRASTRUCTURE PVT.LTD,CHANDIGARH vs. ACIT,CIRCLE--2(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed and that of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 131,132 /Chd/2020 "नधा"रण वष" / A.Y.: 2014-15, 2015-16, M/S Csj Infrastructure Pvt.Ltd., The Acit, C/O C.A. Ajay Kumar Jain, Vs Circle 2(1), Sco 80-81, 4Th Floor, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh. Chandigarh. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aaccc8021G अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 146, 147/Chd/2020 "नधा"रण वष" / A.Y.: 2014-15, 2015-16, The Acit, Vs M/S Csj Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Circle 2(1), C/O C.A. Ajay Kumar Jain, Chandigarh. Sco 80-81, 4Th Floor, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aaccc8021G अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ajay Jain, Ca Revenue By : Shri Manav Bansal, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 19.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.05.2025 Physical Hearing O R D E R

Price + Stamp Duty & Registration Charges 3.1 The Vendee has made a payment of Rs.2,60,00,000/- vide cheque No. 023655 on 25.01.2011. There was some dispute between the assessee and the vendee and ultimately Sale Deed was executed during the Accounting Year relevant to assessment year 2014-15. The ld. AO has confronted the assessee qua Section 43CA

ACIT,CIRCLE--2(1), CHANDIGARH vs. CSJ INFRASTRUCTURE PVT.LTD, CHANDIGARH

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed and that of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 131,132 /Chd/2020 "नधा"रण वष" / A.Y.: 2014-15, 2015-16, M/S Csj Infrastructure Pvt.Ltd., The Acit, C/O C.A. Ajay Kumar Jain, Vs Circle 2(1), Sco 80-81, 4Th Floor, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh. Chandigarh. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aaccc8021G अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 146, 147/Chd/2020 "नधा"रण वष" / A.Y.: 2014-15, 2015-16, The Acit, Vs M/S Csj Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Circle 2(1), C/O C.A. Ajay Kumar Jain, Chandigarh. Sco 80-81, 4Th Floor, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aaccc8021G अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ajay Jain, Ca Revenue By : Shri Manav Bansal, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 19.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.05.2025 Physical Hearing O R D E R

Price + Stamp Duty & Registration Charges 3.1 The Vendee has made a payment of Rs.2,60,00,000/- vide cheque No. 023655 on 25.01.2011. There was some dispute between the assessee and the vendee and ultimately Sale Deed was executed during the Accounting Year relevant to assessment year 2014-15. The ld. AO has confronted the assessee qua Section 43CA

SCOTT EDIL ADVANCE RESEARCH LABORATORIES AND EDUCATION LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH

price fluctuations. The reliance in\nthis respect can be placed on the following decisions:\n“(i) [Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Kolkata v. Narula\nEducational Trust [2021] 126 taxmann.com 158 (Kolkata - Trib.)\n(ii) Champaklal S. Kasat v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Cent. Cir. 1(3),\nAhmedabad [2017] 82 taxmann.com 243 (Ahmedabad - Trib

PAWAN KUMAR,FATEHABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, 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 by this Court

SMT. SHANKRI DEVI,PANCHKULA vs. ACIT, PANCKULA CIRCLE, 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 by this Court