JCIT (OSD), (EXEMPTIONS), C-1, CHANDIGARH vs. PATIALA IMPROVEMENT TRUST, PATIALA

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue for the Assessment years 2013-14 and 2015-16 are dismissed and appeal pertaining to the Assessment year 2014-15 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

properties on commercial lines) has become the predominant activity to the detriment of the main mandate of the improvement Trusts namely town improvement. vii. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law in not taking into account the amendment brought in section 2(15) w.e.f. 01.04.2016 which expressly bars exemptions

DCIT, C-1 (E), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S IMPROVEMENT TRUST, PATIALA

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue for the Assessment years 2013-14 and 2015-16 are dismissed and appeal pertaining to the Assessment year 2014-15 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

properties on commercial lines) has become the predominant activity to the detriment of the main mandate of the improvement Trusts namely town improvement. vii. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law in not taking into account the amendment brought in section 2(15) w.e.f. 01.04.2016 which expressly bars exemptions

DCIT, (E), C-1, CHANDIGARH vs. THE PATIALA IMPROVEMENT TRUST, PATIALA

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue for the Assessment years 2013-14 and 2015-16 are dismissed and appeal pertaining to the Assessment year 2014-15 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

properties on commercial lines) has become the predominant activity to the detriment of the main mandate of the improvement Trusts namely town improvement. vii. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law in not taking into account the amendment brought in section 2(15) w.e.f. 01.04.2016 which expressly bars exemptions

DCIT, C-1 (EXPEMTION), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S IMPROVEMENT TRUST HOSHIARPUR, HOSHIARPUR

The appeals of the Revenue are hereby dismissed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15

15) by relying on the objects of the assessee even when the said amendment had refocused the section's applicability based on the activities of entities. 4. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law in ignoring the stringent import of the proviso wherein even activities in the nature of trade

DCIT, C-1 (EXEMPTION), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S IMPROVEMENT TRUST KARTARPUR, KARTARPUR

The appeals of the Revenue are hereby dismissed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15

15) by relying on the objects of the assessee even when the said amendment had refocused the section's applicability based on the activities of entities. 4. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law in ignoring the stringent import of the proviso wherein even activities in the nature of trade

HARYANA BUILDING AND OTHER CONSTRUCTION WORKERS WELFARE BOARD,PANCHKULA vs. DCIT, EXEMPTION, SECTOR 17

In the result, this appeal of the Assessee stands dismissed

property, to contract, and to sue or be sued in its own name, to\nexercise powers conferred on, and perform the functions assigned to it\nunder this Act.\n1. 3. Further, Section 24 of the Act (Relevant extract of Section 24 is\nmentioned at page 13 of the BOCW Act, 1996) lays down that the Board\nshall have the responsibility

HARYANA BUILDING AND OTHER CONSTRUCTION WORKERS WELFARE BOARD,PANCHKULA vs. DCIT, EXEMPTION, CHANDIGARH

In the result, this appeal of the Assessee stands dismissed

property, to contract, and to sue or be sued in its own name, to\nexercise powers conferred on, and perform the functions assigned to it\nunder this Act.\n1. 3. Further, Section 24 of the Act (Relevant extract of Section 24 is\nmentioned at page 13 of the BOCW Act, 1996) lays down that the Board\nshall have the responsibility

HARYANA BUILDING AND OTHER CONSTRUCTION WORKERS WELFARE BOARD,PANCHKULA vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), CHANDIGARH

In the result, this appeal of the Assessee stands dismissed

property, to contract, and to sue or be sued in its own name, to\nexercise powers conferred on, and perform the functions assigned to it\nunder this Act.\n\n1. 3. Further, Section 24 of the Act (Relevant extract of Section 24 is\nmentioned at page 13 of the BOCW Act, 1996) lays down that the Board\nshall have

HARYANA BUILDING AND OTHER CONSTRUCTION WORKERS WELFARE BOARD,PANCHKULA vs. DCIT, EXEMPTION, CHANDIGARH

In the result, this appeal of the Assessee stands dismissed

property, to contract, and to sue or be sued in its own name, to\nexercise powers conferred on, and perform the functions assigned to it\nunder this Act.\n\n1. 3. Further, Section 24 of the Act (Relevant extract of Section 24 is\nmentioned at page 13 of the BOCW Act, 1996) lays down that the Board\nshall have

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

section 54 of the Act. 12. In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed.” 12. In view of the above, this issue is also accordingly allowed in favour of the assessee. 13. Ground Nos. 4 & 5 : : Vide these grounds, the assessee has contesting the action of the CIT(A) in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer

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 properties can be invested more than once for the same new property if cost of property is within capital gains that arose to the assessee. The contention of the A.O. that the assessee has invested in the said property in the previous year i.e. A.Y. 2012-13 and the assessee has also claimed benefit of deduction

DCIT, C-,1 (E), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S PUNJAB MEDICAL FOUNDATION CHARITABLE TRUST, JALANDHAR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: S/Shri N.K. Saini, Vice- & Rajpal Yadav, Vice-"नधा"रण वष"/ Asstt.Year: 2014-15 Dcit, Cir.1(Exemption) M/S.Punjab Medical Foundation Chandigarh. Vs. Charitable Trust 63-64, Waryam Nagar Cool Road, Jalandhar Pan : Aaatp 5171 B (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri Sudhir Sehal, Advocate Assessee By Revenue By : Shri Ashok K. Khana, Addl.Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 18/11/2020 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/12/2020 आदेश/O R D E R

property held under a trust does not enure for the benefit of public, and it has been used for the benefit of certain individuals who happen to be relatives of the trustee, then such receipt will not qualify for exemption under sections 11 and 12 of the Act. In other words, benefit of section 11 and 12 would not available

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

property tax receipts, we find that it is a case of construction of new house after demolition of old structure and well within the framework and having the necessary attributes and specification of a residential house eligible for deduction u/s 54 of the Act. The preliminary findings of the ld PCIT in the show-cause notice that

M/S Y.D. SOLUTIONS,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO, W-4(5), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

15. As for the contention of the Ld.Counsel for the assessee that in the preceding year the rental income earned had been accepted by the Revenue as assessable under the head Business and profession in scrutiny assessment ,we find no merit in the same. We have gone through the order passed in the preceding year u/s 143(3) and find

M/S FATEH HOMES PRIVATE LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO WARD-1(4), CHANDIGARH

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

houses had been let. (c) Section 23(1 )- 23. (1) For the purposes of section 22, the annual value of any property shall be deemed to be— (a) the sum for which the property might reasonably be expected to let from year to year: or…… 27.2.1 Thus, aforesaid provisions show how the annual let out value

M/S Y.D. SOLUTIONS,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO, CHANDIGARH

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Ms.Diva Singh & Ms. Annapurna Guptay.D. Solutions, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 2133, Sector 38-C, Ward 4(1), Chandigarh. Chandigarh. Pan: Aabfy0386N (Appellant) (Respondent)

15. As for the contention of the Ld.Counsel for the assessee that in the preceding year the rental income earned had been accepted by the Revenue as assessable under the head Business and profession in scrutiny assessment ,we find no merit in the same. We have gone through the order passed in the preceding year u/s 143(3) and find

SH. MAHESH CHUGH,CHANDIGARH vs. PR.CIT-2, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

property u/s 54F, it was submitted, was of Rs. 72,50,000/-. Inviting attention to copy of the Purchase Deed appended at pages 12 to 23 of House No. 3113, Sector 28D. It was submitted that these were filed before the AO as well as the PCIT. 5.4. In the said background, in the hearings which continued before

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

property would constitute transfer. Thus, according to him, the case of the assessee falls within sub- clause (iv) and (vi) of Section 2(47) of the Income Tax Act. 11. We have duly considered the rival contentions and gone through the record carefully. There is no dispute qua the fact that agricultural land measuring 24 kanal 9 marla situated