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.

Term Capital Gain since undisputedly the building is a business asset of the assessee who is using it as a dhaba/hotel. The land, on the other hand, is a non depreciable asset and capital gain earned on account of transfer of the same tantamounts to Long

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.

Term Capital Gain since undisputedly the building is a business asset of the assessee who is using it as a dhaba/hotel. The land, on the other hand, is a non depreciable asset and capital gain earned on account of transfer of the same tantamounts to Long

M/S LUDHIANA LEASING PVT. LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-II, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 241/Chd/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2019-20 M/S Ludhiana Leasing Pvt.Ltd., बनाम The Dcit, Central Circle-Ii, #168, Sector 8, Chandigarh Chandigarh "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aaacl6365N अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

depreciation and earned net gain of Rs. 16,71,42,769/- Even the Assessee has paid due capital gains tax on the said receipt, as applicable, under the normal provisions of the Income Tax Act. The Auditor of the Assessee had shown this capital gain under the Column ‘other income’. However, the Assessee in the Income Tax return deducted

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

Long-Term capital gains (LTCG), the assessee claimed to have incurred construction cost of Rs.6.22 Lacs during FYs 1982-83 to 1985-86 (tabulated at para 4 of the assessment order). The indexed cost thereof for Rs.54.07 Lacs was, accordingly, claimed by the assessee. However, the same was not allowed by Ld. AO on the observation that as per sale

SHRI MOHAN LAL GUPTA,SHIMLA vs. PR.CIT-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

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

Long Term Capital Gains were determined at Rs. 1,57,62,283/-. Therefore, as far as matter pertaining to transfer expenses, CLU expenses and claim of deduction u/s 54F of the Act, we find that the same are clearly emerging from the reassessment order passed u/s 143(3) r/w 147 of the Act and the impugned revisionary order so passed

SH. RAJESH KUMAR,MANDI GOBINDGARH vs. ITO, W-1, MANDI GOBINDGARH

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

Long Term Capital Gains claimed exempt U/S 10(38) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. That on the facts & circumstances of the case, on the one hand, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs 36,000/- on account of Household Expenses and on the other hand has also allowed relief as per asstt. order

SMT. NEHA GUPTA,MANDI GOBINDGARH vs. ITO, W-1, MANDI GOBINDGARH

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

Long Term Capital Gains claimed exempt U/S 10(38) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. That on the facts & circumstances of the case, on the one hand, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs 36,000/- on account of Household Expenses and on the other hand has also allowed relief as per asstt. order

CEIGALL INDIA LIMITED, LUDHIANA,LUDHIANA vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

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

capital gains was raised by the AO during the course of assessment proceedings. AO should have called for the details and supporting documents of the fixed assets sold and then would have verified the admissibility of the contention of the assessee. Therefore, the AO failed to examine and verify the issue during assessment. 9 5.3 Further, With regards

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

long term capital gain to be added into the hands of the assessee. 4. The issue was carried in appeal before the CIT(A) who was also not convinced with the submissions, leading to the filing of the present appeal before the ITAT. 5. The Ld. AR inviting attention to the assessment order submitted that in the facts

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, LUDHIANA , LUDHIANA vs. ROSHA ALLOYS PVT. LTD., MANDI GOBINDGARH

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed,\nwhereas the appeals of the assessee are allowed

depreciation\nallowance or any other\nallowance or deduction\nfor such assessment year\n(hereafter in this section\nand in sections 148 to 153\nreferred relevant\nyear).\nto\nas the\nassessment\nUp to Finance Act 2020\n147. If the 5 [Assessing] Officer [has\nreason to believe”] that any income\nchargeable to tax has escaped\nassessment for any assessment year

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, LUDHIANA , LUDHIANA vs. ROSHA ALLOYS PVT. LTD., MANDI GOBINDGARH

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed,\nwhereas the appeals of the assessee are allowed

depreciation\nallowance or any other\nallowance or deduction\nfor such assessment year\n(hereafter in this section\nand in sections 148 to 153\nreferred to as the\nrelevant\nyear).\nassessment\nUp to Finance Act 2020\n147. If the 5 [Assessing] Officer [has\nreason to believe”] that any income\nchargeable to tax has escaped\nassessment for any assessment year

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, LUDHIANA , LUDHIANA vs. ROSHA ALLOYS PVT. LTD., MANDI GOBINDGARH

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed,\nwhereas the appeals of the assessee are allowed

depreciation\nallowance or any other\nallowance or deduction\nfor such assessment year\n(hereafter in this section\nand in sections 148 to 153\nreferred relevant\nyear).\nas the assessment\n147. If the 5 [Assessing] Officer [has\nreason to believe”] that any income\nchargeable to tax has escaped\nassessment for any assessment year,\nhe may, subject to the provisions\nof sections

ROSHA ALLOYS P LIMITED, AMLOH ROAD, VILLAGE TURAN, MANDI GOBINDGARH,PUNJAB vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, LUDHIANA, PUNJAB

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed,\nwhereas the appeals of the assessee are allowed

depreciation\nallowance or any other\nallowance or deduction\nfor such assessment year\n(hereafter in this section\nand in sections 148 to 153\nreferred to as the\nrelevant assessment\nyear).\nUp to Finance Act 2020\n147. If the 5 [Assessing] Officer [has\nreason to believe”] that any income\nchargeable to tax has escaped\nassessment for any assessment year

M/S TJR PROPERTIES PVT. LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. ACIT, CC-2, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the Appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

Long Term Capital Gain in the hands of M/s TJR from the said transaction. It is not the case of the AO that the said land was a Benami asset held in the name of M/s TJR. Further, M/s TJR paid earnest money of Rs.1,50,00,000/- during FY. 2016-17 for purchase of a plot to build flat/apartment

RAJ KAMAL GANDHI,NEW SHIMLA vs. PR. CIT, SHIMLA

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

Long Term Capital Gain, wherein, during the assessment proceedings the assessee has submitted the entire record to show that the assessee had claimed cost of indexation in respect of land only and not in respect of the building which, according to assessee, was already demolished / damaged / having no value, at the time of the aforesaid sale of the plot

RAJ KAMAL GANDHI,NEW SHIMLA vs. ITO, W-1, SHIMLA

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

Long Term Capital Gain, wherein, during the assessment proceedings the assessee has submitted the entire record to show that the assessee had claimed cost of indexation in respect of land only and not in respect of the building which, according to assessee, was already demolished / damaged / having no value, at the time of the aforesaid sale of the plot

INCOME TAX OFFICER, MOHALI PUNJAB vs. TAJ LAND DEVELOPEFRS AND PROMOTERS PRIVATE LIMITED , SECTOR MOHALI PUNJAB

In the result, appeal is dismissed

depreciation relating to the same,\nwhich has not been challenged by the Revenue before us.11 is clearly evident\nthat on receiving information from the Commercial Tax Department, the Id. AO\ndid not even care to verify the same from his records from where al I these\nfactual inaccuracies would have been brought out. There was clearly total non-\napplication

ACIT, CC-2, CHANDIGARH vs. M/S TJR PROPERTIES PVT. LTD., CHANDIGARH

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

Long Term Capital Gain in the hands of M/s TJR from the said transaction. It is not the case of the AO that the said land was a Benami asset held in the name of M/s TJR. Further, M/s TJR paid earnest money of Rs.1,50,00,000/- during F.Y. 2016-17 for purchase of a plot to build flat/apartment