SH.ASHOK KUMAR GUPTA,LUDHIANA vs. PR.CIT-1, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

property before, or within 2 years after, the date of transfer of the residential house property For constructing a new The construction

M/S Y.D. SOLUTIONS,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO, CHANDIGARH

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Ms.Diva Singh & Ms. Annapurna Guptay.D. Solutions, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 2133, Sector 38-C, Ward 4(1), Chandigarh. Chandigarh. Pan: Aabfy0386N (Appellant) (Respondent)

house property”. The contention of the Revenue that the property let out was not a commercial property and no extra

ITO, W-4, PANCHKULA vs. SMT. SEEMA BISHNOI, PANCHKULA

In the result appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sanjay Gargthe Ito Vs. Smt. Seema Bishnoi Ward-4, Panchkula H.No. 906, Sec-08, Panchkula

property should be a residential house. The expression 'residential house' has not been defined in the Act. The popular meaning

SH. HARMESH KUMAR KALSI,MOHALI vs. ITO, MOHALI

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

Bench: Us. The Issue Raised In This Appeal Is Relating To The Eligibility Of The Assessee To Claim Exemption U/S 54 Of The Act In Respect Of The Amount Capital Gains Invested In Residential Property. The Assessee Sold His Property On 01.09.2008 For A Sum Of Rs. 65 Lacs & Purchased A Residential Plot For A Sum Of Rs. 28 Lacs Including Stamp Duty Thereupon & Claimed Exemption U/S 54 Of The Act Pleading That The Said Property/Plot Was Purchased For Residential Purposes. The Ao, However, Denied

house on the property. He has submitted that the assessee has infact constructed a residential house on the property within

ROPAR DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE UNION LIMITED,MOHALI vs. PCIT, CHANDIGAR-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: SHRI AAKASH DEEPJAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

properties. In this regard, it is pertinent to mention here that the definition of "Owner of house property", annual charge

KANDHARI INFRASTRUCTURES PRIVATE LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1),CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

In the result, 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 (Appeals) Is Erroneous, Arbitrary, Opposed To The Facts Of The Case & Thus Untenable.”

House Property at Rs. 40,73,316/- and the net income, after the set off of other house property income

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

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

House Property" & not under the head "Income from Business & Profession". The learned Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax has failed to appreciate

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

house property by estimating the rental income from House No. 1124/37 B, Chandigarh at Rs. 2,40,000/- as against

JANTA LAND PROMOTERS PRIVATE LIMITED ,MOHALI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 6(1) CHANDIGARH , MOHALI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 907/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 बनाम M/S Janta Land Promoters Pvt.Ltd. The Ito, Sco 39-42, Sector 82, Ward 6(1), Vs Mohali. Chandigarh. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan /Tan No: Aabcj3450D अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Pankaj Bhalla, Ca राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. Cit, Sr.Dr तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 07.05.2025 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30.07.2025

House property" In this regard, it is submitted that :- A) Income from unsold inventory of flats is taxable under the head

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)

house property assessable as such. 17. Briefly stated, during assessment proceedings, the assessee had attributed cash deposited in the bank

TARUN JAIN,BATHINDA vs. PR.CIT(CENTRAL), LUDHIANA

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

House Property, Short term capital gain on sale of gold coin/s and on the sale of shares of ‘Spice Jet Ltd.’, Long

RAJNI JAIN,BATHINDA vs. PR.CIT(CENTRAL), LUDHIANA

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

House Property, Short term capital gain on sale of gold coin/s and on the sale of shares of ‘Spice Jet Ltd.’, Long

SHRI SANJAY JAIN,BATHINDA vs. PR.CIT(CENTRAL), LUDHIANA

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

House Property, Short term capital gain on sale of gold coin/s and on the sale of shares of ‘Spice Jet Ltd.’, Long

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, profits and gains of business or profession, or capital gains, nor is it income from 'other sources' because

KARNAIL SINGH,UK vs. JCIT (OSD) INTL. TAXATION, CIRCLE, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stands allowed

house property as there is no construction/ complete property and the question of letting out the same to third party

KARNAIL SINGH,UK vs. JCIT (OSD) INTL. TAXATION, CIRCLE, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stands allowed

house property as there is no construction/ complete property and the question of letting out the same to third party

KARNAIL SINGH,UK vs. JCIT (OSD) INTL. TAXATION, CIRCLE, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stands allowed

house property as there is no construction/ complete property and the question of letting out the same to third party

KARNAIL SINGH,UK vs. JCIT (OSD) INTL. TAXATION, CIRCLE, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stands allowed

house property as there is no construction/ complete property and the question of letting out the same to third party