NOOR RESORTS PRIVATE LIMITED,KULLU vs. PR.CIT, SHIMLA

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

house property” and not as business income. Secondly there was no business activity therefore expenses and the depreciation was wrongly

SHRI HARISH GOYAL,CHANDIGARH vs. ACIT, C-4(1), CHANDIGARH

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes only

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sanjay Gargआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 1378/Chd/2019 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Shri Harish Goyal, Vs. The Acit, H.No. 3126, Circle 4(1), बनाम Sector 28-D Chandigarh Chandigarh "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Aavpg3228R अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

property by estimating the rental income from House No. 659/16 B, Panchkula at Rs. 1,80,000/- as against correctly declared actual realized rent of Rs. 84,000/- of the portion let out. 8. That the appellant craves leave for any addition, deletion or amendment in the grounds of appeal on or before the disposal of the same. 3. Ground

ITO, W-4, CHANDIGARH vs. SANT RAM SHARMA, PANCHKULA

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Ms.Diva Singh & Ms.Annapurna Guptathe Income Tax Officer, Vs. Sh.Sant Ram Sharma, Ward 4, H.No.883, Sector 8, Panchkula. Panchkula. Pan: Ampps1995K (Appellant) (Respondent)

depreciation has been claimed. Further the NOC has been issued by Road Transport Authority, Panchkula, dated 17.05.2012 in the name of purchaser. The purchaser's affidavit has also been placed on record by the appellant. Therefore no addition is called for on this account and addition made by AO is ordered to be deleted. This ground of appeal is allowed

SANJEEV KUMAR GOYAL,FATEHABAD vs. DCIT, CC-2, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is allowed

Bench: This Hon’Ble Tribunal Under Section 253 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 As Amended From Time To Time. 2. The Assessee Is Aggrieved By The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Dt. 20/01/2023 In Appeal No. 10853/2018-19/It/Cit(A)-5/Ldh/2021-22 For The A.Y. 2019-20 Under Section 250(6) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Which Was Dismissed. Therefore The Present Second Appeal Under Section 253 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Before Us Against The Aforesaid Order Dt. 20/01/2023 Which Is Hereinafter Referred To As The Impugned Order.

house property and loss from other sources are Rs.8,73,382/-. In the profit & loss account, the assessee has shown income of Rs.45,00,000/- with narration Income from Business on A/c of shortage of cash and building exp. As surrender u/s 133A on the credit side of Profit & loss Account. iii) That the return of income was accompanied with

PREM SINGH,CHAMBA vs. ACIT CIRCLE PALAMPUR, PALAMPUR

In the result, the appeal for AY 2017-18 stands partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 946/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 947/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shri Prem Singh Dcit Circle, Palampur बनाम/ The Palace. Chamba Himachal Pradesh - 176061 Vs. Himachal Pradesh – 176310 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aampr-8876-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ajay Jain (Ca) – Ld. Ar Revenue By : Shri Bharat Bhushan Garg (Cit) (Virtual) - Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13-11-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13-01-2026 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. The Assessee Is In Further Appeals Before Us For Assessment Years (Ay) 2015-16 & 2017-18 Which Arises Out Of Separate Orders Of Learned First Appellate Authority. First, We Take Up Appeal For Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16 Which Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac [Cit(A)] Dated 22-07-2025 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S 143(3) Of The Act On 29-12-2017. The Assessee Is Aggrieved By Computation Of Capital

house property. In support of its claim, the assessee has furnished valuation report from registered valuer of the department who has carried out physical inspection of the property. The said valuation report has been placed on age Nos. 44 to 47 of the paper-book wherein the valuer has valued the property as under: - Particulars Area in sft Rate

UMESH KUMAR,MANDI vs. ITO, BILASPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Diva Singhassessment Year: 2008-09

depreciated accordingly. The assessee in her application before the LAO had submitted that she was running a guest house in the said property

DUSHYANT,MANDI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Diva Singhassessment Year: 2008-09 Dushyant Vs. The Ito S/O Sh. Viptu Ram R/O Vpo Sunder Nagar Tata Pani Distt, Mandi Distt- Mandi, H.P. Pan No. Apfpd0262D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Inder Mohan Revenue By : Shri Manjit Singh

depreciated accordingly. The assessee in her application before the LAO had submitted that she was running a guest house in the said property

SHRI BALBIR SINGH VERMA,SHIMLA vs. PR.CIT, SHIMLA

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

house property and salary as a sitting MLA from HP Vidhan Sabha. Key issues examined included deductions claimed under Section 24(b) for interest on borrowed capital, motor car expenses, loans and advances, unsecured loans, and additional income of Rs. 1,25,00,000/- declared post a survey under Section 133A conducted on 04.03.2015. 3.2 Regarding Interest Claimed under Section

VIMAL GROVER,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO WARD 5, YAMUNANAGR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 957/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 बनाम Shri Vimal Grover, The Ito, 1473, Basement & Ground Floor, Ward 5, Vs Sector 40-B, Chandigarh. Yamuna Nagar. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan /Tan No: Aaypg3728P अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Ajay Jain, Ca राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 18.03.2026 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 15.04.2026 Hybrid Hearing

house loan or be it a property purchased for office use, the interest expenditure deserves to be allowed to the assessee. If AO is of the view that it cannot be allowed as a business expenditure, then alternate claim of the assessee for allowing of interest u/s 24 of the Act ought to have considered by the AO. Accordingly

M/S CHANDIGARH BOTTLING CO.,CHANDIGARH vs. ACIT, CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Diva Singh & Dr.B.R.R.Kumar & Assessment Year: 2006-07

depreciation establishes a fact that the said building was being used for business. The appellant is wrong in saying to the contrary in this ground of appeal. The appellant was the owner of the building and the land even though registered deed was not executed. This issue stands covered by 3 decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported

HET RAM SHARMA,MANDI vs. ITO, , SUNDERNAGAR

In the result, both the above appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Ms. Annapurna Guptaassessment Year: 2008-09 Shri. Het Ram Sharma Vs. The Ito Vill & P.O. Tattapani Sundernagar Tehsil Karsog Mandi, H.P. Mandi, H.P.

property Year of construction : 1998-99 Cost as valued by LAO : Rs. 8,12,952/- Indexed cost : Rs. 812952 x 551/351 : Rs. 12,76,173/- Long term Capital Gain : Rs. 4,83,321/- No deduction u/s 54 was allowed as the assessee could not provide any proof of investment in purchase or construction of a new house before

DHEERUMAL SHARMA,MANDI vs. ITO, SUNDERNAGAR

In the result, both the above appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Ms. Annapurna Guptaassessment Year: 2008-09 Shri. Het Ram Sharma Vs. The Ito Vill & P.O. Tattapani Sundernagar Tehsil Karsog Mandi, H.P. Mandi, H.P.

property Year of construction : 1998-99 Cost as valued by LAO : Rs. 8,12,952/- Indexed cost : Rs. 812952 x 551/351 : Rs. 12,76,173/- Long term Capital Gain : Rs. 4,83,321/- No deduction u/s 54 was allowed as the assessee could not provide any proof of investment in purchase or construction of a new house before

SH. GURINDER MAKKAR,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-3, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is disposed off in light of aforesaid directions

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

house property’, (iii) ‘profits and gains from business or profession’, (iv) ‘capital gains’ and (v) ‘income from other sources’ – cannot at all be adjusted against unexplained investment or expenditure. What is necessary as per Hon. Gujarat High Court is that source of acquisition of asset or expenditure should be clearly identifiable. In the case before Hon. Gujarat High Court

SH. TEJINDER SINGH,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, C-1(1), CHANDIGARH

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 574/Chd/2018 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year :2013-14

house property and income from other sources. The assessee’s case was selected for scrutiny under the CASS guidelines and during the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer (AO) noted that the assessee had given his car on lease to the employer company and had received a lease rent of Rs. 4,08,000/- as ‘income from other sources

M/S FAMINA KNIT FABS,LUDHIANA vs. ACIT, C-3, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

depreciation from the surrendered income. 7 A.Y.2014-15 & A.Y.2013-14 4. That provisions of section 68, 69, 69A, 69B and 69C, 72 and 115BBE of the IT. Act, 1961 have been misconstrued and misapplied in the Appellant's case 5. The Appellant craves leave to add, amend, modify and/or add new Grounds of Appeal before the Appeal is heard and disposed

M/S PINEGROVE INTERNATIONAL CHARITABLE TRUST,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, C-1 (E), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is accordingly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Smt.Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.567/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16

Houses and the main Academic and A d m i n i s t r a t i v e O f f i c e B l o c k s e t c . To t a l c o v e r e d a r e a o f t h e s e buildings was approximately

SAHIBZADA TIMBER AND PLY PRIVATE LIMITED ,MOHALI vs. DCIT, ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 699/Chd/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2019-20 M/s Sahibzada Timber & Ply Private Limited B41-42, Phase-3, Indl. Aera, SAS Nagar Mohali, Punjab बनाम The DCIT Central Circle-2 Chandigarh स्थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AAQCS2239G अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Mohit Dhiman, C.A राजस्व की ओर से/ Revenue by : Dr. Ranjeet Kaur, Sr. DR Shri Dharam Vir, Addl. CIT, Sr.DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of He

House India Private Limited (Income Tax Appeal No. 110 of 2016 (O& M) dated 24/01/2017) brought to notice of both the parties during the course of hearing and both the parties were heard. The question for consideration before the Hon’ble High Court was whether for the purposes of computing the capital gains on sale of land and building

SH. AMAN SETH,LUDHIANA vs. ITO, W-1(1), LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

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

Propertie Ltd. 6,00,000/- 18,60,000/- 7,30,000/- 67,671/- 2. M/s Punjab Apparel Park 6,77,280/- 6,77,280/- 6,77,280/- 62,784/- 3. Advance for purchase of 24,64,125/- 24,64,125/- 24,64,125/- 2,28,424/- plot 4. Ins. By Allahba Bank

SH. PARSHOTAM GOYAL,SIRSA vs. PR.CIT, ROHTAK

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.149/Chd/2021 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year :2016-17 Sh. Rajeev Goyal Pr. Commissioner Of Income बनाम M/S R.K. Associates, Tax, Rohtak B.G. Complex Near Ganesh Dharam Kanta, Sirsa -125055, Haryana "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Aibpg7289A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

house and did not arrive at the actual investment made by the assessee; d) That Assessing officer has made no enquiry in respect of property and the source of investment in purchase of property has not been quantified. ITA Nos. 149 to 152, 154 & 157-c-2021 Rajeev Goyal & others 10 e) That the Assessing officer conducted no enquiry regarding