SH. ASHISH JAIN,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-III, LUDHIANA

In the result, the ground no

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

House No. 60-A, Kitchlu Nagar, CC-III, Ludhiana Ludhiana- 141008 "थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AESPJ2222B अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ"/Respondent आयकर अपील सं./ ITA NO. 354/Chd/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shri Bipan Jain The DCIT बनाम C/o Jain Amar Clothing Pvt. Ltd. CC-III, Ludhiana Chawal Bazar, Ludhiana- 141008 "थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: ABLPJ0336J अपीलाथ

SH. ASHISH JAIN,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-III, LUDHIANA

In the result, the ground no

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

House No. 60-A, Kitchlu Nagar, CC-III, Ludhiana Ludhiana- 141008 "थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AESPJ2222B अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ"/Respondent आयकर अपील सं./ ITA NO. 354/Chd/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shri Bipan Jain The DCIT बनाम C/o Jain Amar Clothing Pvt. Ltd. CC-III, Ludhiana Chawal Bazar, Ludhiana- 141008 "थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: ABLPJ0336J अपीलाथ

SH. BIPAN JAIN,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-III, LUDHIANA

In the result, the ground no

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

House No. 60-A, Kitchlu Nagar, CC-III, Ludhiana Ludhiana- 141008 "थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AESPJ2222B अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ"/Respondent आयकर अपील सं./ ITA NO. 354/Chd/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shri Bipan Jain The DCIT बनाम C/o Jain Amar Clothing Pvt. Ltd. CC-III, Ludhiana Chawal Bazar, Ludhiana- 141008 "थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: ABLPJ0336J अपीलाथ

SH. AKHIL JAIN,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-III, LUDHIANA

In the result, the ground no

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

House No. 60-A, Kitchlu Nagar, CC-III, Ludhiana Ludhiana- 141008 "थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AESPJ2222B अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ"/Respondent आयकर अपील सं./ ITA NO. 354/Chd/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shri Bipan Jain The DCIT बनाम C/o Jain Amar Clothing Pvt. Ltd. CC-III, Ludhiana Chawal Bazar, Ludhiana- 141008 "थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: ABLPJ0336J अपीलाथ

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 at Palace Chamba; (ii) House No.127 at Golf Links; & (iii) Chamba House at 153, Golf Link. Accordingly, this alternative deduction was also denied to the assessee. 3.10 Finally, the assessment was framed wherein Taxable Long Term Capital Gains

AMARJIT SINGH MARWAHA ,SHIMLA vs. ITO, NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadavआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1379/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Shri Amarjit Singh Marwaha, The Ito, Cottage No.1, Sadhora, Vs Ward-1, Mashobra, Baldeyan, Shimla. Shimla. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aeepm0161N अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Vishal Mohan Sr.Advocate, With Shri Abhinav Bijwaria, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. Cit Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 21.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.01.2026

house was sold for a consideration of Rs.77,50,000/- and after giving benefit of indexed cost, Long Term Capital Gain comes to Rs.28,65,000/- which has escaped assessment. 6. After hearing the assessee, ld. AO has passed the impugned assessment order on 30.03.2022 u/s 147 read with Section 144B of the Income

DESH MITTER GAIND,PANCHKULA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, PANCHKULA, PANCHKULA, HARYANA

Bench: This Tribunal. The Assessee Is Aggrieved By The Order Of Cit(A) Bearing No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-

house property, you intend to apply the provisions of Section 50C in the case of assessee In this regard, we wish to submit that the Agreement to Sell of this property was entered by the assessee in January, 2010 i.e. in assessment year 2010-11, when the collector rate o f the property in Sector 6, Panchkula was Rs.24

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

Long Term Capital Gain required to be determined on sale of immovable house property bearing House No. 845 Sector 38-A, Chandigarh

THE PUNJAB STATE FEDERATION OF COOPERATIVE HOUSE BUILDING SOCIETIES LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

In the result, both the above appeals of the Assessee are dismissed

Bench: the appeal is finally heard.

long term capital gain and treating the same as business income amounting to Rs. 41,10,000/- is bad in law and needs to be set aside. 4. That the order of the Assessing Officer as upheld by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2 Chandigarh disallowing Rs 39,37,774/- being the amount of gross total interest received

THE PUNJAB STATE FEDERATION OF COOPERATIVE HOUSE BUILDING SOCIETIES LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. ACIT, CHANDIGARH

In the result, both the above appeals of the Assessee are dismissed

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

long term capital gain and treating the same as business income amounting to Rs. 41,10,000/- is bad in law and needs to be set aside. 4. That the order of the Assessing Officer as upheld by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2 Chandigarh disallowing Rs 39,37,774/- being the amount of gross total interest received

DEVI DAYAL,KAITHAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 , KAITHAL

In the result, appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 899/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09 Shri Devi Dayal, Vs The Ito, Pundri Anaj Mandi, Ward – 1, Kaithal-Haryana 136026. Kaithal. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aajpd5851H अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, Ca & Ms. Shruti Khandelwal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Manav Bansal, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 30.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.09.2025

Housing Ltd. on 29.08.2007 and M/s Uppal Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. on 30.11.2008 would not constitute transfer of any capital asset which would result in earning of Long Term Capital Gain upon whom tax liability is to be discharged by the assessee/land owners. For buttressing this proposition, he took us through the alleged Collaboration Agreements as well as the following judgements

DHARAMPAL SAGHERA,CHANDIGARH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(4), CHANDIGARH , CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

Bench: Sh. Laliet Kumar Hon’Ble & Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon’Ble

House No. 55, Sector 9-A, Chandigarh, as long-term capital gain, claimed deductions under Sections 54 and 54EC of the Act. The amount was received in lieu of relinquishment of her long-standing possessory and beneficial rights in the property

SH. JAGMOHAN SINGH,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-1, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

property and to substantiate his claim of deduction under Section 54 of the Act. Thereafter, the assessee filed the necessary information/documentation which were considered by the AO but not found fully acceptable. 3. The AO reworked the LTCG at Rs. 38,65,580/-, as against capital gain of Rs. 37,22,387/- declared by the assessee, by disallowing certain cost

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)

Long Term Capital Gain (8) (3)-(7) Nil 4.2. There is no error in the calculation of the deduction claimed u/s 54F. The deduction u/s 54F is to be computed when a capital asset is sold and part of capital gain amount is invested and claimed as deduction under provisions of s. 54, it has been laid in numerous judgements

RAMA RANI,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT,CIRCLE 1(1), CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No. 933/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Ms. Rama Rani Dcit बनाम/ Vs. H. No 1058, Popular Enclave Circle 1(1), Sector 48-B, Chandigarh Chandigarh. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aerpr-2072-Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Ravinder Krishan (Advocate)– Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Rajat Kumar Kureel (Cit) – Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 30-06-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 04-07-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. By Way Of This Appeal, The Assessee Assails Invocation Of Revisionary Jurisdiction U/S 263 By Ld. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Chandigarh-1 (Pr.Cit) For Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16 Vide Impugned Order Dated 14-03-2024 Proposing Revision Of Assessment As Framed By Ld. Ao U/S.147 Of The Act On 29-03-2022. The Registry Has Noted Delay Of 98 Days In The Appeal, The Condonation Of Which Has Been Sought By Ld. Ar On The Strength Of Condonation Petition Which Is Accompanied By An Affidavit Of The Assessee. It Has Been Stated That The Assessee Was Not In India When

Long Term Capital Gains of Rs.184.73 Lacs against which the assessee claimed deduction u/s 54F for Rs.85.77 Lacs for the reason that it made investment in house property

RISHU GARG S/O SH. SURENDER KUMAR GARG,YAMUNANAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3, YAMUNANAGAR

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

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A). However, it is evident from the impugned appellate order that, despite several opportunities granted during the appellate proceedings, the assessee failed to comply and did not file any substantive submissions. Consequently, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal and confirmed the addition primarily on account of non-prosecution and absence of supporting evidence.

House No. 1491, Sector – 4 Panchkula Haryana - 134112 "ायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AGPPG1912N अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ"/Respondent िनधा"रती की ओर से/Assessee by : Ms. Vineet Thakral, Adv. राज" की ओर से/ Revenue by : Shri Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 18/03/2026 उदघोषणा की तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 19/03/2026 आदेश/Order

M/S SATWANT AGRO ENGINEERS,BHAWANIGARH vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, PATIALA

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

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

long as the partners have confirmed that the money is given by them to the firm, no addition under section 68 can be made in the hand of the firm in respect of credits to the partner's capital account in firm. Further it is submitted that credit entry in capital account of partners was surrendered in firm which

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)

long term working capital requirements and for general corporate purposes which are clearly for trading operations of the assessee. In such a case, interest income could neither be held to be capital receipt nor could it be classified as business income. 7. In the case law of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Tuticorin Alkali Chemical and Fertilizers