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

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”. 3.2 In response, the assessee filed its submission which were considered but not found acceptable to the AO and the AO determined the deemed let out value of the property no. 13 Lajpat Nagar IV for the period of nine months (excluding the month in which it was sold) at Rs. 139.95 Lacs. Thereafter, after allowing the deduction

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

Property" for the assessment year under appeal without appreciating nomenclature of business of assessee and without appreciating that any income from these flats, in the form of rent, can also only be taxed u/s 28 of the Act. ITA 907/CHD/2024 A.Y. 2017-18 5 2.1. That the Ld. C.LT.(A), NFAC, Delhi was not justified in confirming the addition

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 the provisions of sections 69, 69A, 69B and 69C treat unexplained investments, unexplained money, bullion, etc., and unexplained expenditure as deemed income where the nature and source of investment, acquisition or expenditure, as the case may be, have not been

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH vs. DEEP KAUR PANNU THROUGH L/H RANJI SINGH PANNU & GURBILAS PLATO SINGH PANNU, CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 987/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Dcit, Deep Kaur Pannu, Circle 1(1), बनाम # 1070, Chandigarh Sector 15-B, Vs. Chandigarh "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Abmpk1575B अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent ( Physical Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Sh. Manoj Goyal, Ca राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Manav Bansal, Cit Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 22.05.2025 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 07.08.2025 आदेश/Order Per Krinwant Sahay, Am: Appeal In This Case Has Been Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 24.7.2024 Of Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi.

property was actually let out for rent to the tenant. 3. The Ld. CIT(A), in the facts and circumstances of case has erred in deleting the additions of Rs. 7,14,03,777/- and Rs. 56,000/- made by the Assessing Officer by denying deduction under section 54F of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and computing income from House

DCIT, CIRCLE, PATIALA vs. M/S PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LTD., PATIALA

In the result, ground no. 1 & 3 of the Revenue’s appeal is allowed and ground no

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

house property', which action has not been assailed in further appeals thereby allowing the finality to attach to that aspect of the matter. It is not the case of the assessee that the building from which rental income was earned, was not purchased by investing its money. Proceeding further supposing the building whose annual was assessed under Chapter

SHRI PRINCEPREETJIT SINGH,RANJIT NAGAR vs. PR.CIT-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

house property prior to the date of sale deed but within permissible period counted from receipt of advance qualifies for deduction

GURPARTAP SINGH KAIRON,CHANDIGARH, INDIA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE, WARD-2(1), , CHANDIGARH, INDIA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Appeal Is Finally Heard & Disposed Off.”

House Property” and demand of Rs. 8,58,081/- was raised on the assessee. 4. Being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld CIT(A) wherein the appeal was partly allowed and addition of Rs. 5,97,172/- was sustained and against the addition so sustained, the assessee is in appeal before us. 5. During

SH. MANJIT SINGH BAIDWAN,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, INTL. TAXATION, CIRCLE, CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Krinwant Sahay

deduction u/s 54F of the Act has held that where the new house was purchased in the name of the wife of the assessee and it was established that the purchase consideration was invested out of the property

SH. RAJINDER SINGH BEDI,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT (INTL. TAXATION), CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 538/Chd/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Rajinder Singh Bedi, The Dcit, (Int.Taxation ), 1368, Sector 40-B, Vs Chandigarh. Chandigarh. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Afwpb3355A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate Revenue By : Smt. Kusum Bansal, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 09.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 04.06.2025 Hybrid Hearing O R D E R

house bearing No. 845 Sector 38-A, Chandigarh was originally allotted to Smt. Joginder Kaur on 03.04.1987. The assessee got 100% share of this property from his mother on 24.06.2010. He has sold the property for a total consideration of Rs.3,88,00,000/- during the accounting year relevant to assessment year 2018-19. Thus, the dispute relates to correct

RAJIV KUMAR GOYAL,DHURI vs. DCIT, CC-2, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee 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 Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Dated 03/02/2023 In Appeal No. 10850/2018-19/It/Cit(A)-5/Ldh/2021-22 For 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. 03/02/2023 Which Is Hereiafter Referred To As The Impugned Order. Factual Matrix 3. The Assessee Had For The Relevant Year I.E; A.Y. 2019-20 Was Also Engaged In The Same Business I.E; Manufacturing Of Pvc Pipes & Had Filed

house property, profits and gains of business or profession, or capital gains, nor as it income from "other sources" because the provisions of section 69, 69A, 69B and 69C treat unexplained investments, unexplained money, bullion etc. and unexplained expenditure as deemed income where the nature and sources of investment, acquisition or expenditure, as the case may be, have not been

M/S BROOKS LABORATORIES LTD. ,BADDI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE , PANCHKULA

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: SHRI RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

deduction or adjustment on account of any expenditure can be made except as provided by the Act. The basic proposition that has to be borne in mind is that it could be possible for a company to have different sources of income, each one of which will be chargeable to income-tax. 'Profits and gains of business or profession

M/S BROOKS LABORATORIES LIMITED,SOLAN vs. DCIT, PANCHKULA

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: SHRI RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

deduction or adjustment on account of any expenditure can be made except as provided by the Act. The basic proposition that has to be borne in mind is that it could be possible for a company to have different sources of income, each one of which will be chargeable to income-tax. 'Profits and gains of business or profession

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), CHANDIGARH vs. POONAM KHETRAPAL SINGH, CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1000/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2021-22 Dcit, Poonam Khetrapal Singh, बनाम Circle 1(1), H. No 816, Sector 16, Chandigarh Chandigarh. Vs. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Anqps6367R अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent ( Hybrid Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Sh. Ashish Kumar Singh, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Smt Kusum Bansal, Cit Dr (Virtual Mode) सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 15-05-2025 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 06-08-2025 आदेश/Order Per Krinwant Sahay, Am: Appeal In This Case Has Been Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 29.7.2024 Of Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi.

Housing 1000-Chd-2024 Poonam Khetrapal Singh, Chandigarh 2 Properties so much so that the property which was already in possession of the assessee and assessee has herself claimed deduction

MAHAKALI DEVELOPERS AND RESORTS PRIVATE LIMITED,SCF vs. PCIT PATIALA, AAYKAR BHAWAN

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahay

house property income at Rs.17,14,387/- in ITA No.294 & 295/CHD/2024 A.Y.2013-14 & 2015-16 3 assessment year 2013-14 and Rs.20,47,661/-. It has claimed deduction

ASHWANI KUMRA,CHANDIGARH vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHANDIGARH

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No. 718/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Shri Ashwani Kumra Acit-Ward 2(1) बनाम/ Sco 338, Motor Market Aaykar Bhawan, Sector-17 Vs. Manimajra – 160101 Chandigarh – 160017 "ायीलेखासं /. जीआइआरसं /. Pan/Gir No. Adppk-2516-H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" /Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/Appellant By : Sh. Deepak Aggarwal (Advocate) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Vivek Vardhan (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 22-09-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 07/10/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2013- 14 Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 15-05-2024 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S. 144 R.W.S. 147 Of The Act On 29-03-2022. The Sole Issue That Arises For Our Consideration Is Computation Of Capital Gains. Having Heard Rival Submissions & Upon Perusal Of Case Records, The Appeal Is Disposed-Off As Under. The Assessee Has Also Filed Written Submissions Which Have Duly Been Considered While Adjudicating The Appeal.

deduction for 20% for residential element in the said property. However, field enquiries by Ld. AO revealed that Motor Market and Commercial Complex at Manimajra, Chandigarh did not have any residential house

MAHAKALI DEVELOPERS AND RESORTS PRIVATE LIMITES,SCF , IST FLOOR vs. PCIT PATIALA, AAYKAR BHAWAN PATIALA

The appeals are allowed

house property income at Rs.17,14,387/- in\n assessment year 2013-14 and Rs.20,47,661/-.\nIt has\nclaimed deduction

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