BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtPhrasesAI ResearchHistory

Filters

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

  • Search Judgments
  • Browse by Bench
  • Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

76 results for “house property”+ Section 115clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi643Mumbai616Karnataka494Bangalore181Ahmedabad151Jaipur127Hyderabad116Chennai114Cochin85Chandigarh76Kolkata65Indore59Calcutta53Raipur49Telangana45Amritsar39Pune38Visakhapatnam31Guwahati23Lucknow19Nagpur17SC15Cuttack12Surat10Rajasthan10Agra8Patna6Orissa4Allahabad4Rajkot3Jabalpur1D.K. JAIN JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1T.S. THAKUR ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1Andhra Pradesh1Varanasi1Jodhpur1

Key Topics

Section 26351Addition to Income35Section 153A31Section 143(3)27Section 14824Section 13(3)24Section 153D21Section 143(2)16Section 250

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 35/CHANDI/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 Nov 2022AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri. Pankaj Bhalla, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum, CIT DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54

property. It was accordingly submitted that a new construction of house has been done from scratch. Without prejudice, it was submitted that even if it is assumed that the new construction has not been done, it is a case of renovation therein also the assessee is entitled to exemption under section 54 of the Act. In support, the reliance

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

Showing 1–20 of 76 · Page 1 of 4

16
Deemed Dividend14
Exemption13
Disallowance10

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 79/CHANDI/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh22 May 2024AY 2019-20

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

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate and Shri Rishaba Marwaha, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Dharamvir, JCIT, Sr. D.R
Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 250(6)Section 253

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

AJMER SINGH,MOHALI vs. ITO, W-6(5), MOHAL

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1438/CHANDI/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 May 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Disposal Of Appeal.”

For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 148

property in her name. It is a fact on record that the assessee is an illiterate housewife and has no source of income other than small interest on saving bank account under consideration during the F.Y. 2009-2010. In the assessment preceding under section 142(1) the assessee repeatedly said that the amount in the bank was the sale proceeds

AJMER SINGH,MOHALI vs. ITO, W-6(5), MOHAL

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1439/CHANDI/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 May 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Disposal Of Appeal.”

For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 148

property in her name. It is a fact on record that the assessee is an illiterate housewife and has no source of income other than small interest on saving bank account under consideration during the F.Y. 2009-2010. In the assessment preceding under section 142(1) the assessee repeatedly said that the amount in the bank was the sale proceeds

ITO, W-6(5), MOHALI vs. SMT. GURDEV KAUR, KHARAR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1448/CHANDI/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 May 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Disposal Of Appeal.”

For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 148

property in her name. It is a fact on record that the assessee is an illiterate housewife and has no source of income other than small interest on saving bank account under consideration during the F.Y. 2009-2010. In the assessment preceding under section 142(1) the assessee repeatedly said that the amount in the bank was the sale proceeds

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 561/CHANDI/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh12 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Goyal & Ms. Ashisha Mittal, C.A’sFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)

section 143(1) dated 05.12.2018, an addition of Rs. 20,65,050/- was made under the head “income from 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

M/S CHANDIGARH LAWN TENNIS ASSOCIATION,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO (EXEMPTIONS), CHANDIGARH

ITA 1382/CHANDI/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh26 Jul 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptaassessment Year : 2013-14 Chandigarh Lawn Tennis Vs. The Ito (Exemptions), Association, Ward, Chandigarh Sector 10, Chandigarh Pan No. Aaatc4943J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sh. Y.K. Sud, Ca Respondent By : Smt. Chanderkanta, Addl. Cit (On 22.3.2018) & Sh.Yoginder Mittal, Sr. Dr (On 13.7.2018) Date Of Hearing : 22.03.2018 & 13.7.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.07.2018

For Appellant: Sh. Y.K. Sud, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Chanderkanta, Addl. CIT (on 22.3.2018)
Section 11Section 12ASection 13(8)Section 2(15)

Housing Board, Hyderabad Vs. DIT (E), (Hyderabad ) in ITA No. 110/Hyd/2008 vide its judgment dated 03.06.2015 ITA No. 1382/Chd/2016- Chandigarh Lawn Tennis Association, Chandigarh 13 (f) Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority Vs. ACIT (Exemptions), (Ahmedabad) in ITA No. 712 and 711/Ahd/2013 and ITA No. 647 and 2335/Ahd/2014 vide its d judgment dated 19.04.2016. 9. Reliance has also been placed

SANJEEV KUMAR GOYAL,LUDHIANA vs. ACIT, CC-2, LUDHIANA

In the result, all these three appeals are hereby allowed

ITA 1357/CHANDI/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh14 Mar 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: The Disposal Of The Present Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Mukhi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjeet Kaur, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 57Section 57o

house property as stated by you and the interest paid on loan against property is clearly eligible for deduction u/s 57 of the Act. In funds received by the assessee out of the loan against property was also utilized for giving unsecured loans. 4. That in most of the'cases interest to be paid on unsecured loans has been credited

SH. KRISHAN KUMAR,KHANNA vs. DCIT, CC-1, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 175/CHANDI/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Jan 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anil Sharma, JCIT, Sr.DR
Section 115BSection 133ASection 139Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 68Section 69Section 69ASection 69BSection 69C

115 BBE. Further the provisions of section 69 of the Act apply to unexplained investments and not sum already offered to tax as income by the Assessee in the return of income at the maximum marginal rate. The objective behind the introduction of the section 115BBE was only to curb the practice of laundering of unaccounted money. 7.9 Based

SH. ABHISHEK BANSAL,BARNALA vs. PR. CIT, PATIALA

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 131/CHANDI/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh13 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Dr Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 131/Chd/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Abhishek Bansal, Vs. Pr. Commissioner बनाम Prop. M/S Lifeline Multi Income Tax, Specialilty Hospitality, 25 Acre Patiala Extn., Near Fountain Chowk, Barnala, Punjab "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Acgpb5740E अपीलाथ" ./ Appellant ""यथ" / Respondent ( Hybrid Mode ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Sh. Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Rohit Sharma, Cit Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 09.05.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 13.06.2024 आदेश/Order Per Dr. Krinwant Sahay, A.M.:

For Appellant: Sh. Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR
Section 115Section 115BSection 133Section 263

section 115 BBE of the Act. Accordingly, appeal on this Ground is dismissed as ‘not pressed’. 7. Appeal on Ground Nos. 1 and 2 are against the passing of order u/s 263 of the Act by the ld. PCIT, Patiala on the ground that the assessment order framed by the Assessing Officer was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest

M/S FAMINA KNIT FABS,LUDHIANA vs. ACIT, C-3, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 1494/CHANDI/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 Feb 2019AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Hari Om Arora, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Gupta, CIT DR
Section 250(6)

115 BBE has been made only to convey the desired intention of the legislature and to avoid unnecessary litigation? 2. Whether the Ld.CIT(A) was justified in relying upon the decision of Hon'ble Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, in the case of Sainjay Bairathi [ITA No. 157/JP/17, dated 08.08.2017], whereas, the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the case

SHRI BALRAM KRISHAN,CHANDIGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

ITA 727/CHANDI/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 Mar 2025AY 2013-14
Section 127Section 132Section 153ASection 153D

Housing & Infrastructure Company Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO., 82 ITR 0046, Delhi ITAT” on identical issue, it has been held as under : – Dividend—Reception of loans and advances—Deemed dividend— Assessee company is engaged in business of commission agent and property development—A.O. completed assessment under section 143(3) after making impugned addition under section 2(22)(e) on account

HARVINDER SINGH ,CHANDIGARH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(1), CHANDIGARH , CHANDIGARH

In the result, the addition so made and sustained by the ld CIT(A) is hereby directed to be deleted

ITA 737/CHANDI/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 115Section 143(2)Section 69

115 BBE which are not applicable in the instant case. 4. That the appellant craves leave to add or amend the grounds of appeal before the appeal is finally heard or disposed off. 5. That the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) Officer is arbitrary, opposed to the facts of the case and thus untenable.” 3. Briefly

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. M/S SPRAY ENGINEERING DEVICES LTD., CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 369/CHANDI/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 Apr 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Manjit Singh, Sr.DR
Section 115JSection 14ASection 80I

house for meeting their power requirements. The logo which was placed mainly on the engine was ‘Jackson’ and the same were made in various kinds and ranges in 1000KVA. There was no controversy about the fact that there were as many components of the said machine. The perusal of list of salaries and workers also showed that the assessee

SH. RAVINANDAN KUMAR,LUDHIANA vs. ACIT, C-7, LUDHIANA

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

ITA 21/CHANDI/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh14 Jun 2021AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Khanna, Addl.CIT
Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 57

Properties arid vancnA other personal Unsecured Loans It is a landmark principle that money has no colour and entire money of the Assessee, coming from any source, comes m a common kitty. It should De the discretion of the Assessee that where he had applied his sources The above Investment in M/s Rahul Sales is his personal Investment, whereas

ANUP KUMAR AGGARWAL,PANCHKULA vs. ACIT(CENTRAL) SHIMLA, SHIMLA

Appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1019/CHANDI/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Nov 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.1019/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22) Sh. Anup Kumar Aggarwal Acit (Central) बनाम/ Vs. House No.218,Sector-10 Shimla 171001 Panchkula – 134113 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Adjpk-5842-L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Ajay Jain (Ca) A/W Shri Lovesh Bansal (Ca) – Ld. Ars ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Smt. Kusum Bansal (Cit) – Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 15-09-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24/11/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2021-22 Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Gurgaon [Cit(A)] Dated 31-07-2025 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Ao U/S 147 Of The Act On 12-03-2025. The Assessee Is Aggrieved By Confirmation Of Additions Of Rs.10.95 Lacs U/S 69 & Another Addition Of Rs.16.21 Lacs U/S 69A. The Additions Stem From Search Action By The Department On Assessee-Group On 04-

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Jain (CA) a/w Shri Lovesh BansalFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal (CIT) – Ld. DR
Section 127Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 151ASection 69Section 69A

House No.218,Sector-10 Shimla 171001 Panchkula – 134113 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. ADJPK-5842-L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant by : Sh. Ajay Jain (CA) a/w Shri Lovesh Bansal (CA) – Ld. ARs ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent by : Smt. Kusum Bansal (CIT) – Ld. DR सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date of Hearing : 15-09-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 24/11/2025 आदेश

ANUP KUMAR AGGARWAL,PANCHKULA vs. ACIT(CENTRAL) SHIMLA, SHIMLA

Appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1018/CHANDI/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

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

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Jain (CA)a/w Shri Lovesh BansalFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal (CIT) – Ld. DR
Section 127Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 151ASection 69A

House No.218,Sector-10 Shimla 171001 Panchkula – 134113 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. ADJPK-5842-L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant by : Sh. Ajay Jain (CA)a/w Shri Lovesh Bansal (CA) – Ld. ARs ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent by : Smt. Kusum Bansal (CIT) – Ld. DR सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date of Hearing : 15-09-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 24/11/2025 आदेश

POOJA AGGARWAL,PANCHKULA vs. ACIT(CENTRAL) SHIMLA, SHIMLA

Appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1026/CHANDI/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Nov 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.1026/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22) Ms. Pooja Aggarwal Acit Central बनाम/ Vs. House No.218,Sector-10 Shimla 171001 Panchkula – 134113 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Abnpa-6660-N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Ajay Jain (Ca)A/W Shri Lovesh Bansal (Ca) – Ld. Ars ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Smt. Kusum Bansal (Cit) – Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 15-09-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24/11/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2021-22 Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Gurgaon [Cit(A)] Dated 31-07-2025 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Ao U/S 147 Of The Act On 12-03-2025. The Assessee Is Aggrieved By Confirmation Of Substantive Addition Of Rs.16.21 Lacs & Protective Addition Of Rs.10.95 Lacs. The Additions Stem From Search Action By The Department On Assessee-Group On 04-

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Jain (CA)a/w Shri Lovesh BansalFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal (CIT) – Ld. DR
Section 127Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 151A

House No.218,Sector-10 Shimla 171001 Panchkula – 134113 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. ABNPA-6660-N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant by : Sh. Ajay Jain (CA)a/w Shri Lovesh Bansal (CA) – Ld. ARs ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent by : Smt. Kusum Bansal (CIT) – Ld. DR सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date of Hearing : 15-09-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 24/11/2025 आदेश

DCIT vs. M/S THE VED PARKASH MUKAND LAL, YAMUNANAGAR

In the result, the assessee’s appeals, for both the years, stand dismissed

ITA 832/CHANDI/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh10 Mar 2026AY 2006-07

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.824/Chandi/2014 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2005-06) & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.825/Chandi/2014 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) The Ved Prakash Mukand Lal Dcit Educational Society Circle Yamuna Nagar बनाम/ Vs. (Radaur, Yamuna Nagar) Haryana C/O Shri Tej Mohan Singh (Advocate) #527, Sector – 10D, Chandigarh "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaatv-4812-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & 3. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.833/Chandi/2014 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2005-06) & 4. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.832/Chandi/2014 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) Dcit The Ved Prakash Mukand Lal Circle Yamuna Nagar Educational Society बनाम/ Haryana (Radaur, Yamuna Nagar) Vs. C/O Shri Tej Mohan Singh (Advocate) #527, Sector – 10D, Chandigarh "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaatv-4812-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Tejmohan Singh (Advocate) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Smt. Yamini (Cit) - Ld. Dr (Virtual)

For Appellant: Sh. Tejmohan Singh (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. Yamini (CIT) - Ld. DR (Virtual)
Section 11Section 11(2)Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147

houses in India for residential purposes and which is eligible for deduction under clause (viii) of sub-section (1) of section 36; (ixa) deposits with or investment in any bonds issued by a public company formed and registered in India with the main object of carrying on the business of providing long-term finance for urban infrastructure in India. Explanation

THE VED PRAKASH MUKAND LAL EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,YAMUNANAGAR vs. DCIT, YAMUNANAGAR

In the result, the assessee’s appeals, for both the years, stand dismissed

ITA 824/CHANDI/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh10 Mar 2026AY 2005-06

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.824/Chandi/2014 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2005-06) & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.825/Chandi/2014 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) The Ved Prakash Mukand Lal Dcit Educational Society Circle Yamuna Nagar बनाम/ Vs. (Radaur, Yamuna Nagar) Haryana C/O Shri Tej Mohan Singh (Advocate) #527, Sector – 10D, Chandigarh "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaatv-4812-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & 3. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.833/Chandi/2014 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2005-06) & 4. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.832/Chandi/2014 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) Dcit The Ved Prakash Mukand Lal Circle Yamuna Nagar Educational Society बनाम/ Haryana (Radaur, Yamuna Nagar) Vs. C/O Shri Tej Mohan Singh (Advocate) #527, Sector – 10D, Chandigarh "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaatv-4812-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Tejmohan Singh (Advocate) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Smt. Yamini (Cit) - Ld. Dr (Virtual)

For Appellant: Sh. Tejmohan Singh (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. Yamini (CIT) - Ld. DR (Virtual)
Section 11Section 11(2)Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147

houses in India for residential purposes and which is eligible for deduction under clause (viii) of sub-section (1) of section 36; (ixa) deposits with or investment in any bonds issued by a public company formed and registered in India with the main object of carrying on the business of providing long-term finance for urban infrastructure in India. Explanation