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)

25,045/-, therefore, had been rightly assessed to tax. 11. We have heard the rival contentions, perused the orders of the authorities below and gone through the documents referred to before us. 12. As stated above the issue before us relates to determining the head under which rental income received by the assessee is to be assessed whether” business

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, as envisaged by a the parties. We are, therefore, of the view that this clause will also not rope in the present transaction. 24. The matter can also be viewed from a slightly different angle. Shri Vohra is right when he ha referred to Sections 45 and 48 of the Income Tax Act and has then argued that some

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 45" The complete details of the commercial properties sold during the F.Y. 2014-15 and eligible/allowable deduction u/s 54F is as under:- Particulars Property No. 1 Property No. Property No. 3, Bay Total Plot No. F- 2, Plot No. Shop No. 13-14, 264 Phase-8, 182/49, Indl. Sector 27-D, Mohali Area, Phase-1, Chd (17.5%) Chd Value

SANJEEV KUMAR KATHURIA,YAMUNA NAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 , YAMUNANAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

house. 2. The PCIT has wrongly enhanced the scope of scrutiny assessment while faming order under section 263 of Income Tax Act. 3. Briefly the facts of the case are that the assessee filed his return of income declaring total income of Rs. 69,52,590/-. Subsequently, return of income was selected for complete scrutiny and notice under section

JANTA LAND PROMOTERS PRIVATE LIMITED ,MOHALI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 6(1) CHANDIGARH , MOHALI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 907/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 बनाम M/S Janta Land Promoters Pvt.Ltd. The Ito, Sco 39-42, Sector 82, Ward 6(1), Vs Mohali. Chandigarh. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan /Tan No: Aabcj3450D अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Pankaj Bhalla, Ca राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. Cit, Sr.Dr तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 07.05.2025 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30.07.2025

25 days. The assessee has filed an application u/s 253(5) of the ITA 907/CHD/2024 A.Y. 2017-18 2 Income Tax Act. After perusing the application of the assessee running from page 1 to 5, we are satisfied that it was prevented by sufficient reasons for not presenting the appeal within time. Hence, we condone the delay and proceed

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

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

section 2(15) there is a paradigm shift from the earlier position. Though, some of the decisions of the Delhi High Court as referred to above and that of the Pb. & Hry. High Court in the case of The Tribune Trust (supra) have been delivered subsequent to the introduction of the second proviso to section

ITO, MOHALI vs. SH. DALHIT SINGH, MOHALI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and Cross Appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2008-09

property Act and Registration Act were not conclusive for interpretation of provisions of Income Tax Act 9. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding that the provisions of section 2(47)(ii) are not applicable whereas all the members of society surrendered their individual rights

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

25,67,392/- in respect of sale of 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

SIKANDER SINGH MALUKA,MOHALI vs. ITO, MOHALI

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptathe I.T.O., Vs. Sh.Sikandar Singh Maluka, Ward 5(1), # 1370, Sector 40-B, Chandigarh. Chandigarh Pan: Abzpm7206N & Sh.Sikandar Singh Maluka, Vs. The I.T.O., # 1370, Sector 40-B, Ward 5(2), Chandigarh. Chandigarh Pan: Abzpm7206N

property Act and Registration Act were not conclusive for interpretation of provisions of Income Tax Act. 9. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding that the provisions of section 2(47)(ii) are not applicable whereas all the members of society surrendered their individual rights

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

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

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

ITO, W-4, CHANDIGARH vs. SANT RAM SHARMA, PANCHKULA

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Ms.Diva Singh & Ms.Annapurna Guptathe Income Tax Officer, Vs. Sh.Sant Ram Sharma, Ward 4, H.No.883, Sector 8, Panchkula. Panchkula. Pan: Ampps1995K (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 144, the comparable case given by the appellant has been found to be acceptable and reasonable having regard to nature of business and turnover declared. Therefore N.P. Rate of 16.49 %, as agreed by the appellant, is applied to gross receipts of Rs.28,55,000/- declared by appellant from business of marriage palace and net profit thereby comes to Rs.4

RAJNI JAIN,BATHINDA vs. PR.CIT(CENTRAL), LUDHIANA

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

House Property while passing the order u/s 263. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee gave a detailed response to the show cause notice demonstrating that the AO had conducted adequate enquiries on the issue of Long Term Capital Gain, exemption u/s 10(36) of the Act, deduction u/s 57 of the Act as well as on unsecured loans

SHRI SANJAY JAIN,BATHINDA vs. PR.CIT(CENTRAL), LUDHIANA

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

House Property while passing the order u/s 263. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee gave a detailed response to the show cause notice demonstrating that the AO had conducted adequate enquiries on the issue of Long Term Capital Gain, exemption u/s 10(36) of the Act, deduction u/s 57 of the Act as well as on unsecured loans

TARUN JAIN,BATHINDA vs. PR.CIT(CENTRAL), LUDHIANA

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

House Property while passing the order u/s 263. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee gave a detailed response to the show cause notice demonstrating that the AO had conducted adequate enquiries on the issue of Long Term Capital Gain, exemption u/s 10(36) of the Act, deduction u/s 57 of the Act as well as on unsecured loans

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

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Disposal Of Appeal.”

house wife and having no taxable income in AY 2010-11. However the AO made addition of Rs. 1,73,10,000/- in the hand of Baldev Kaur @ Gurdev Kaur vide order dated 23.03.2016. Similar addition of Rs. 1,73,10,000/- was made later on in the case of Ajmer Singh by issuing a notice u/s 148 and completing

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

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Disposal Of Appeal.”

house wife and having no taxable income in AY 2010-11. However the AO made addition of Rs. 1,73,10,000/- in the hand of Baldev Kaur @ Gurdev Kaur vide order dated 23.03.2016. Similar addition of Rs. 1,73,10,000/- was made later on in the case of Ajmer Singh by issuing a notice u/s 148 and completing

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

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Disposal Of Appeal.”

house wife and having no taxable income in AY 2010-11. However the AO made addition of Rs. 1,73,10,000/- in the hand of Baldev Kaur @ Gurdev Kaur vide order dated 23.03.2016. Similar addition of Rs. 1,73,10,000/- was made later on in the case of Ajmer Singh by issuing a notice u/s 148 and completing