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

section 2(47) of the IT Act, 1961. We also place reliance on the decision of CIT vs. Rasiklal Maneklal (HUF) (177 ITR 198)(SC) wherein the apex court held, affirming the decision of the High Court, that there was neither an "exchange" nor a "relinquishment" and no capital gains arose from the transaction. An "exchange" involves the transfer

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

section 2(47) of the IT Act, 1961. We also place reliance on the decision of CIT vs. Rasiklal Maneklal (HUF) (177 ITR 198)(SC) wherein the apex court held, affirming the decision of the High Court, that there was neither an "exchange" nor a "relinquishment" and no capital gains arose from the transaction. An "exchange" involves the transfer

M/S NECTAR LIFESCIENCE LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, C-1(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 92C of the Act to the TPO for determining the arms length price in respect of specific domestic transaction undertaken by the assessee. The TPO after examining the transfer pricing adjustment and analyzing the specific domestic transaction with associated enterprises, proceeded to bench mark the power from eligible unit to non eligible unit specifically supply of electricity and steam

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

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

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

69,388/- from M/s SPS Structures Ltd. during the year under consideration. Allegedly, no actual work had been done by this assessee firm as per the information. The AO proceeded to make inquires u/s 133(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short 'the Act'] but the assessee firm did not furnish the required details. Therefore, the AO proceeded

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

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

69,388/- from M/s SPS Structures Ltd. during the year under consideration. Allegedly, no actual work had been done by this assessee firm as per the information. The AO proceeded to make inquires u/s 133(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short 'the Act'] but the assessee firm did not furnish the required details. Therefore, the AO proceeded

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

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

69,388/- from M/s SPS Structures Ltd. during the year under consideration. Allegedly, no actual work had been done by this assessee firm as per the information. The AO proceeded to make inquires u/s 133(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short 'the Act'] but the assessee firm did not furnish the required details. Therefore, the AO proceeded

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

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

69,388/- from M/s SPS Structures Ltd. during the year under consideration. Allegedly, no actual work had been done by this assessee firm as per the information. The AO proceeded to make inquires u/s 133(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short 'the Act'] but the assessee firm did not furnish the required details. Therefore, the AO proceeded

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

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

69,388/- from M/s SPS Structures Ltd. during the year under consideration. Allegedly, no actual work had been done by this assessee firm as per the information. The AO proceeded to make inquires u/s 133(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short 'the Act'] but the assessee firm did not furnish the required details. Therefore, the AO proceeded

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

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

69,388/- from M/s SPS Structures Ltd. during the year under consideration. Allegedly, no actual work had been done by this assessee firm as per the information. The AO proceeded to make inquires u/s 133(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short 'the Act'] but the assessee firm did not furnish the required details. Therefore, the AO proceeded

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

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

69,388/- from M/s SPS Structures Ltd. during the year under consideration. Allegedly, no actual work had been done by this assessee firm as per the information. The AO proceeded to make inquires u/s 133(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short 'the Act'] but the assessee firm did not furnish the required details. Therefore, the AO proceeded

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

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

69,388/- from M/s SPS Structures Ltd. during the year under consideration. Allegedly, no actual work had been done by this assessee firm as per the information. The AO proceeded to make inquires u/s 133(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short 'the Act'] but the assessee firm did not furnish the required details. Therefore, the AO proceeded

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

The appeals of the assessees stand allowed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

69,358/- 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 SHIV SHAKTI CONSTRUCTION,SANGRUR vs. PCIT, PATIALA

The appeals of the assessees stand allowed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

69,358/- 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 OMKAR ENGINEER AND CONTRACTOR,SANGRUR vs. PCTI, PATIALA

The appeals of the assessees stand allowed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

69,358/- 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 OM CONTRACTOR AND ENGINEERS,SANGRUR vs. PCIT, PATIALA

The appeals of the assessees stand allowed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

69,358/- 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

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