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 and therefore, the deduction of the same would not be allowable to the assessee. No substantial evidences were filed by the assessee to support construction on the said land. Finally, the deduction of indexed cost of construction as claimed by the assessee was denied in toto. 3.5 The assessee had paid an amount of Rs.45 Lacs to Corporate Properties

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

deduction U/s 54F of the Act. The appellant complies with the requirement of provisions of section 54F of the Act, which can be summarized as under:- i. Appellant has purchased another house within one year from the date of sale of the old long term asset; ii. She does not own any other house property

SH. MAHESH CHUGH,CHANDIGARH vs. PR.CIT-2, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

deduction u/s 54F of Rs. 1,28,91,083/- was claimed. The investment in house property u/s 54F was made

M/S Y.D. SOLUTIONS,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO, W-4(5), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

deduction of all expenses against the same or under the head ‘income from house property’ as assessed by the Revenue

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)

deduction .u/s 24(a) @ 30% from the annual rental values u/s 23 from these properties. In this regard, it is pertinent to mention here that the definition of "Owner of house

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)

deduction of all expenses against the same or under the head ‘income from house property’ as assessed by the Revenue

KARNAIL SINGH vs. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CHANDIGARH

In the result, ground no. 9 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue

Bench: Us.

House property” and has claimed statutory deduction under section 24 of the Act. Further the assessee has claimed credit of TDS deducted

KARNAIL SINGH vs. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CHANDIGARH

In the result, ground no. 9 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue

Bench: Us.

House property” and has claimed statutory deduction under section 24 of the Act. Further the assessee has claimed credit of TDS deducted

KARNAIL SINGH vs. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CHANDIGARH

In the result, ground no. 9 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue

Bench: Us.

House property” and has claimed statutory deduction under section 24 of the Act. Further the assessee has claimed credit of TDS deducted

KARNAIL SINGH vs. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CHANDIGARH

In the result, ground no. 9 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue

Bench: Us.

House property” and has claimed statutory deduction under section 24 of the Act. Further the assessee has claimed credit of TDS deducted

KARNAIL SINGH vs. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CHANDIGARH

In the result, ground no. 9 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue

Bench: Us.

House property” and has claimed statutory deduction under section 24 of the Act. Further the assessee has claimed credit of TDS deducted

KARNAIL SINGH vs. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CHANDIGARH

In the result, ground no. 9 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue

Bench: Us.

House property” and has claimed statutory deduction under section 24 of the Act. Further the assessee has claimed credit of TDS deducted

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

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

House property” and has claimed statutory deduction under section 24 of the Act. Further the assessee has claimed credit of TDS deducted

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

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

House property” and has claimed statutory deduction under section 24 of the Act. Further the assessee has claimed credit of TDS deducted

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

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

House property” and has claimed statutory deduction under section 24 of the Act. Further the assessee has claimed credit of TDS deducted

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

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

House property” and has claimed statutory deduction under section 24 of the Act. Further the assessee has claimed credit of TDS deducted

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

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

House property” and has claimed statutory deduction under section 24 of the Act. Further the assessee has claimed credit of TDS deducted

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

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

House property” and has claimed statutory deduction under section 24 of the Act. Further the assessee has claimed credit of TDS deducted