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

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

133(A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. We also observe that on page 20 of the paper book where said statement is annexed at bottom the assessee has stated as under “ I further want to state this income will be shown over and above in our firm’s / companies normal income and whole of the tax which will

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

section 54 since the assessee did not attend and comply with the show case notice issued by the AO on 26/12 for 28/12. 6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the assessing officer was incorrect and unjustified in rejecting the claim of the assessee for exemption of long term capital gain without providing

KESHAV DUTT SHREEDHAR,SHIMLA vs. DCIT, SHIMLA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Section 54(1) would not have allowed adjustment and/or exemption in respect of property purchased one year prior to the transfer, which gave rise to the capital gain or may be in the alternative have expressly made the exemption in case of prior purchase, subject to purchase from any advance that might have been received for the transfer

SH. SARANJIT SINGH,PATIALA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE -2, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeals of the assessees stand allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 381 & 382/Chd/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2011-12 Shamsher Singh, Vs. The Acit बनाम Central Circle-2, 11-A, Gen Chanda Singh Chandigarh Colony, Patiala 147001 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Ahjps3586P अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 383 & 384/Chd/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2011-12 Vs. The Acit Saranjit Singh, बनाम Centralcircle-2, 11-A, Gen Chanda Chandigarh Singh Colony, Patiala 147001 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Amwps9575J अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent ( Hybrid Hearing )

house - difference in values as declared by the assessee and as opined by the DVO, - Whether no incriminating evidence was found during the course of search relating to the part additions as confirmed by the Worthy CIT(A)? - Tribunal in the second appeal reversed the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) and deleted the addition holding that since no material

SH. SHAMSHER SINGH,PATIALA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeals of the assessees stand allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 381 & 382/Chd/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2011-12 Shamsher Singh, Vs. The Acit बनाम Central Circle-2, 11-A, Gen Chanda Singh Chandigarh Colony, Patiala 147001 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Ahjps3586P अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 383 & 384/Chd/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2011-12 Vs. The Acit Saranjit Singh, बनाम Centralcircle-2, 11-A, Gen Chanda Chandigarh Singh Colony, Patiala 147001 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Amwps9575J अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent ( Hybrid Hearing )

house - difference in values as declared by the assessee and as opined by the DVO, - Whether no incriminating evidence was found during the course of search relating to the part additions as confirmed by the Worthy CIT(A)? - Tribunal in the second appeal reversed the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) and deleted the addition holding that since no material

SH. SARANJIT SINGH,PATIALA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE -2, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeals of the assessees stand allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 381 & 382/Chd/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2011-12 Shamsher Singh, Vs. The Acit बनाम Central Circle-2, 11-A, Gen Chanda Singh Chandigarh Colony, Patiala 147001 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Ahjps3586P अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 383 & 384/Chd/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2011-12 Vs. The Acit Saranjit Singh, बनाम Centralcircle-2, 11-A, Gen Chanda Chandigarh Singh Colony, Patiala 147001 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Amwps9575J अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent ( Hybrid Hearing )

house - difference in values as declared by the assessee and as opined by the DVO, - Whether no incriminating evidence was found during the course of search relating to the part additions as confirmed by the Worthy CIT(A)? - Tribunal in the second appeal reversed the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) and deleted the addition holding that since no material

SH. SHAMSHER SINGH,PATIALA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeals of the assessees stand allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 381 & 382/Chd/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2011-12 Shamsher Singh, Vs. The Acit बनाम Central Circle-2, 11-A, Gen Chanda Singh Chandigarh Colony, Patiala 147001 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Ahjps3586P अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 383 & 384/Chd/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2011-12 Vs. The Acit Saranjit Singh, बनाम Centralcircle-2, 11-A, Gen Chanda Chandigarh Singh Colony, Patiala 147001 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Amwps9575J अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent ( Hybrid Hearing )

house - difference in values as declared by the assessee and as opined by the DVO, - Whether no incriminating evidence was found during the course of search relating to the part additions as confirmed by the Worthy CIT(A)? - Tribunal in the second appeal reversed the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) and deleted the addition holding that since no material

M/S ASHA TECHNOLOGIES,KALA AMB vs. ITO, SIRMOUR

In the result, both the above appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed as aforesaid in respect of impugned orders dt

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

House Clamp, Cable, Cable Lug, Jointing Sleeve, Tie Strap, Insulating Cover, Plastic Feeder Clamps, Adaptor, Threaded Rod, Screw, Nuts, Washer, Marking Label, Ladder, Ladder Joint, Ladder Hook, Pendulum, Wall Bracket, Flexible Conductor, lug, Bolt, Junction, Angle Support, Rivet, Tube Holder, Cable Chute, Modular Box etc. etc. The purchase bills of these materials by the assessee firm also clearly mention

M/S ASHA TECHNOLOGIES,SIRMOUR vs. ADDL. CIT, SOLAN

In the result, both the above appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed as aforesaid in respect of impugned orders dt

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

House Clamp, Cable, Cable Lug, Jointing Sleeve, Tie Strap, Insulating Cover, Plastic Feeder Clamps, Adaptor, Threaded Rod, Screw, Nuts, Washer, Marking Label, Ladder, Ladder Joint, Ladder Hook, Pendulum, Wall Bracket, Flexible Conductor, lug, Bolt, Junction, Angle Support, Rivet, Tube Holder, Cable Chute, Modular Box etc. etc. The purchase bills of these materials by the assessee firm also clearly mention

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)

133 A on 16/04/2018. By invoking of section 251 of Income Tax Act 1961 your honour proposed to change the nature of deeming provision to section 68 instead of section 69 applied by Assessing Officer. Section 251(l)(a) reads that, "In disposing of an appeal the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) shall have the following powers

TARLOCHAN SINGH ,BHAWANIGARH vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, PATIALA

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

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

133 A of Income Tax Act 1961. The main ground of appeal is contest is that the Assessing Officer assessed the voluntarily surrendered income of Rs.31,07,029.00 as deemed income u/s 69 of Income Tax Act 1961 against the business income surrendered & returned income. During the course of survey u/s 133A of Income Tax Act 1961 the appellant surrendered

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

SH. NARESH CHAUHAN,SHIMLA vs. DCIT, CC-II, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the addition so made is hereby directed to be deleted and the ground of appeal is allowed

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

133(6) was issued to Shri Jagdish Kumar from whom the assessee has stated to have received the said advance of Rs. 1.00 Crores, however no reply was received from Shri Jagdish Kumar. Thereafter, the assessee submitted that Rs. 25,00,000/- each has been received from four persons which belongs to the family of Shri Jagdish Kumar and thereafter

SH. NARESH CHAUHAN,SHIMLA vs. ACIT, CC-II, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the addition so made is hereby directed to be deleted and the ground of appeal is allowed

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

133(6) was issued to Shri Jagdish Kumar from whom the assessee has stated to have received the said advance of Rs. 1.00 Crores, however no reply was received from Shri Jagdish Kumar. Thereafter, the assessee submitted that Rs. 25,00,000/- each has been received from four persons which belongs to the family of Shri Jagdish Kumar and thereafter

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

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

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.:

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

RAMESH KUMAR,NEW DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3, PANCHKULA

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

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

section 144 was also issued to the assessee, however in absence of any explanation/submission filed by the assessee, the AO proceeded and completed the assessment proceedings stating that since the assessee has not furnished any explanation in respect of the sale of the property amounting to Rs. 3,15,00,000/- and has not provided the detail of capital gains

M/S MRS. BECTOR FOOD SPECIALITIES LTD.,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2006-07

housing loan from ICICI HFC Ltd., vide entry dated 30/09/2005. The assessee has not capitalized the interest paid to M/s Jaypee Greens Ltd. New Delhi. The assesse has taken a loan from bank to make payments to M/s Jaypee Greens Ltd. and it a specific loan for this property. The assesse has paid an amount of Rs. 9,51,133