ACIT, CIRCLE, SHIMLA vs. SHRI VINOD SHARMA, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Dr Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1449/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 The Acit, Vs. Shri Vinod Sharma, बनाम B-1/3, Circle, Safdarjang Enclave, Shimla New Delhi 110029 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Abkps1560N अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent (Hybrid Mode ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Sh. Vishal Mohan, Sr. Advocate With Shri Ahninav Bazwaria, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Smt. Kusum Bansal, Cit Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 10.06.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09.07.2024

House property namely DLF Magnolia way back in F.Y. 2005-06 which is clearly outside the time period mentioned in section 54 of the Income-tax Act, it does not fit in case of exemption

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

exemption u/s 54 of the Act pleading that the said property/plot was purchased for residential purposes. The AO, however, denied ITA-925/CHD/2018 Page 2 of 4 the claim of the assessee observing that the property in question was a plot and not a residential house

ITO, W-4(3), CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. RACHNA ARORA, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

exemption u/s 54 should be calculated with reference to amount of investment in newly acquired residential house property and not the amount

S.SURJIT SINGH,LUDHIANA vs. PR.CIT-1, LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt.Diva Singh & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

house on 29/02/2011 and claimed entire capital gain exempted under section 54 being amount deposited in capital gain account scheme on 12/09/2012 with maturity date of 12/09/2015. The assessment was finalized on 28/09/2018 and as per provisions of Section 54, there are time limits wherein the assessee is required to purchase a new residential property

SH. JASWINDER SINGH LOTA,MOHALI vs. DY. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Diva Singh & Shri B.R.R.Kumarassessment Year: 2008-09

exemption claimed by the appellant u/s 54 of the Act ibid on the sole ground that the appellant had purchased/constructed a residential property in foreign country. ii) The furthermore, the Ld. CIT (A) has failed to notice the facts of the case that the appellant had sold a residential house

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 term gain on transfer of eligible equity shares of Virtual Global Education Ltd., {for which, the exemption

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 term gain on transfer of eligible equity shares of Virtual Global Education Ltd., {for which, the exemption

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 term gain on transfer of eligible equity shares of Virtual Global Education Ltd., {for which, the exemption

KESHAV DUTT SHREEDHAR,SHIMLA vs. DCIT, SHIMLA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

house should be used for acquisition of the new asset, Section 54(1) would not have allowed adjustment and/or exemption in respect of property

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

property tax and claimed as deduction while calculating the capital gain on account of expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively in connection with transfer of the house under sold. v) Disallowing a sum of Rs.1,25,00,000 claimed as deduction on account of lawyer fees on the ground that the same was not entitled for deduction under section 48 while

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' and not `business income'. Thus it can be seen that once the conditions of section 22 are satisfied, the income has to be classified under that head and other matters, even if having some bearing, go out of consideration. Similarly an income to come with the ambit of Chapter IV-E, it is fundamental that it should

SH. DALJIT SINGH BASSI,RANJIT NAGAR vs. PR.CIT-1, CHANDIGARH

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 56/Chd/2021 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16

exemption from long term capital gain will be granted proportionately on the basis of investment of net consideration either for purpose or construction of the residential house". Since the investment made in residential property

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

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri R.L Negiआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1245/Chd/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 The Acit, Sh. Manjit Singh Baidwan, बनाम (International Taxation), # 3151, Sector 27-D, Chandigarh Chandigarh

exemption / deduction claimed by the assessee u/s 54 of the Act and addition of Rs. 21,478/- i.e., on account of difference of actual amount of interest received by the assessee and the amount declared by the assessee. The assessee challenged the action of the AO in making addition of Rs.4,72,98,280/- before

SH. DINESH DUA,DELHI vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptaassessment Year : 2008-09

house property. Further, the assessee had claimed exemption u/s 54 of the Act with respect to the said Long Term

SH.DINESH DUA,DELHI vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptaassessment Year : 2008-09

house property. Further, the assessee had claimed exemption u/s 54 of the Act with respect to the said Long Term

SHRI DINESH DUA,DELHI vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptaassessment Year : 2008-09

house property. Further, the assessee had claimed exemption u/s 54 of the Act with respect to the said Long Term

SH. RAMINDER SINGH,MOHALI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(2), MOHALI

The appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Smt.Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1270/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16

house property u/s 54 = Rs. 96,50,000/- Long Term Capital Gain = Nil. “ That the AO took the value of the plots at Rs.2.50 crores,as per section 50C of the Act,as against 1.14 crs shown by the assessee, on the basis of information called for u/s 133(6) of the Act from the Estate Officer GMADA, who submitted

SHRI PARDEEP KUMAR JAIN,ZIRAKPUR vs. ITO, W-2(3), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 190/Chd/2019 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Shri Pradeep Kumar Jain, The Ito, Ward 2(3), बनाम Chandigarh Flat No.222, Orbit Apartments, 6Th Floor, Zirakpur "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Advpj6719P अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

house on 13th Jan., 2006 and purchased, another property jointly with her father-in -law on 2nd Jan, 2007, and filed her return on 28th March, 2007, i.e. before the extended due date of filing of return under s. 139(4) for the relevant asst. yr. 2006-07—Therefore, assessee is entitled to exemption