PAWAN KUMAR SINGLA,PANCHKULA vs. DCIT, CC-I, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the assessee’s appeal on the various grounds raised is dismissed

Bench: Final Hearing.

capital gains of Rs. 10,46,354 (Rs. 20,12,000 – Rs. 9,65,646) and added this amount to the taxable income. Consequently, the total assessed income was revised to Rs. 15,56,812 (Rs. 4,46,680 + Rs. 63,778 + Rs 10,46,354). The AO also initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) for concealment

MANJEET KAUR KAMBOJ,YAMUNA NAGAR HARYANA vs. ITO WARD-2, YAMUNA NAGAR HARYANA, YAMUNA NAGAR HARYANA

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumat & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 550/Chd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Manjit Kaur Kamboj, Ito Ward-2, Lotus Valley Public School, बनाम Yamuna Nagar, Sector – 18, Huda, Haryana Vs. Yamunanagar, Haryana "ायी लेखा सं./Pan No. Abmpk5213G अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ"/Respondent ( Physical Hearing ) िनधा""रती की ओर से/Assessee By : Ms. Meenal Goyal, Ca & Sh. Abhinav Jain, Adv. राज" की ओर से/ Revenue By : Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18.11.2025 उदघोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20.11.2025 आदेश/Order Shri Laliet Kumar: Appeal In This Case Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 21.03.2024 Of Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For A.Y. 2012-13. 2. Grounds Of Appeal, As Taken By The Assessee In Form 36, Are Reproduced As Under:

46A, placed before both authorities demonstrating that the land sold by the Appellant is a rural agricultural land and hence not a capital asset. 3 For that on the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned orders are unsustainable in law since the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the Ld. A.O. passed the 2nd impugned order without

PAWAN KUMAR SINGLA,PANCHKULA vs. DCIT, CC-I, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the assessee's appeal on the various grounds raised\nis dismissed

capital gains of\nRs.10,46,354 (Rs.20,12,000 – Rs.9,65,646) and added this amount to\nthe taxable income. Consequently, the total assessed income was\nrevised to Rs.15,56,812 (Rs.4,46,680 + Rs.63,778 + Rs 10,46,354). The\nAO also initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) for\nconcealment of income and issued a demand notice

PANKAJ GUPTA,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: The Appeal Is Finally Heard Or Disposed Off. 4. That The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax Is Erroneous, Arbitrary, Opposed To Law & Facts Of The Case & Is, Thus, Untenable.” 3. Briefly The Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income On 03/08/2018 Which Was Selected For Scrutiny & During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, The Assessee Was Asked To Provide Details Of The Asset Sold Along With Supporting Documentation Substantiating The Claim For Long Term Capital Gain (Ltcg).

section 133(6) from the Tehsildar of Derabassi seeking information about the crops sown, the total production from the land etc. Thereafter, the Teshildar vide his letter dt. 20/11/2018 furnished the copy of the khasra girdawari for the period 1992 to 1997 and 1998 to 2002 and has given the information regarding the crop being shown as Gair Mumkin Safeda

ITO, SIRSA vs. SH. MAHABIR SINGH, SIRSA

In the result, we do not find any merit in this appeal of the Revenue

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 900/Chd/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08 The Ito, Shri Mahabir Singh, Ward – 2, Vs S/O Shri Het Ram, Vpo Bani, Sirsa. Tehsil-Rania, Distt. Sirsa. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Cdvpm5319N अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Vineet Krishan, Advocate Revenue By : Smt. Kusum Bansal, Cit Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 24.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.09.2025

Capital Gain amounting to Rs.3,03,25,000/- has arisen in the hands of the assessee. Accordingly, ld. AO has made an addition of this amount and passed the ex-parte assessment order on 22.03.2013 u/s 144 read with Section 147 of the Income Tax Act. It is pertinent to note that Section 144 empowers the AO to pass

BALWANT SINGH DHINDSA, ADV. SO KARTAR SINGH, #185 STREET NO. 11, PUNIA COLONY, SANGRUR, PUNJAB,PUNJAB vs. ITO WARD SANGRUR, PUNJAB

In the result, appeal of the assessee is\ndismissed

capital gain in ROI [belated] has been considered\nsubject to verification by ld. AO only as explained sum.\nThe assessee is directed to file relevant submission\nbefore ld. AO for proper verification.\n3.11\nWith\nregard to remaining\ndeposit\nof\nRs.18,07,500/- it was claimed that assessee had received\ncash of Rs.4.50 lakh as agriculture lease income.\nFurther

RAMESH KUMAR,NEW DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3, PANCHKULA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

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

section 144 was also issued to the assessee, however in absence of any explanation/submission filed by the assessee, the AO proceeded and completed the assessment proceedings stating that since the assessee has not furnished any explanation in respect of the sale of the property amounting to Rs. 3,15,00,000/- and has not provided the detail of capital gains

SUBHASH,YAMUNANAGAR vs. ITO, WARD-3, YAMUNANAGAR, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A) & One Of The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Relates To Non-Grant Of Deduction Under Section 54B & 54F Of The Act. 3. During The Course Of Appellate Proceedings, The Assessee Also Moved An Application Under Section 46A Of The Act Which Was Forwarded To The Ao & Remand

Capital Gain (LTCG). Thereafter, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) and one of the grounds raised by the assessee relates to non-grant of deduction under section 54B and 54F of the Act. 3. During the course of appellate proceedings, the assessee also moved an application under section 46A

HARBHOL SINGH,SUNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD SUNAM

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Krinwant Sahay, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.788/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Harbhol Singh Ito H. No. 863, Village – Sheron, Aayakar Bhawan, Income Tax बनाम/ Vs. Suman Road, Sunam Officer, Ward Sunam, Sangrur District : Sangrur Punjab - 148028 Punjab - 148028 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Cssps-9948-F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Deepinder Singh (Advocate) ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Vivek Vardhan (Addl. Cit) Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26-02-2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 19-03-2026 : आदेश / O R D E R Krinwant Sahay () This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)/ Nfac, Delhi Dt. 16/05/2025 For The Assessment Year 2012-13. In The Present Appeal Assessee Raised The Following Grounds:

Capital Gains. Additionally, the AO added Rs. 16,50,000/- as unexplained money under section 69A, noting that the cash deposits were made on 13.10.2011, whereas the land sale occurred later on 08.12.2011. The total income was assessed at Rs. 81,79,120/- via an ex-parte order under section 144 r.w.s. 147 dated 23.12.2019. 5. Against the order

CT EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,JALANDHAR vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is Partly Allowed for\nStatistical Purposes as per the directions above

Capital Work in Progress (if any). The\ndocuments regarding addition to fixed assets were required to be filed before the\nId AO who could have verified and taken a judicious decision. But the appellant\nfailed to do so. However, for the shake of principle of natural justice the AO is\ndirect to verify the claim of the appellant on this