SH. AMAR SINGH,JAGADHARI vs. ITO, YAMUNANAGAR

In the result, both the appeal of different assessees are allowed

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

250/- would not arise in assessment year 2007-08. 10. The ld. CIT(Appeals) considering the submission of the assessee, material on record and case law cited by assessee dismissed this ground of appeal of the assessee and held that Assessing Officer has rightly taxed the capital gain on entire sale consideration in the assessment year under appeal

SH. JAI RAM,JAGADHARI vs. ITO, YAMUNANAGAR

In the result, both the appeal of different assessees are allowed

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

250/- would not arise in assessment year 2007-08. 10. The ld. CIT(Appeals) considering the submission of the assessee, material on record and case law cited by assessee dismissed this ground of appeal of the assessee and held that Assessing Officer has rightly taxed the capital gain on entire sale consideration in the assessment year under appeal

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

250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against law and facts of the case. That the Ld. C.I.T.(A), NFAC, Delhi was not justified in confirming the addition of Rs. 13,81,464/ made by the Assessing Officer under the head "Income from Property" for the assessment year under appeal without appreciating nomenclature of business of assessee and without

SANJEEV KUMAR GOYAL,FATEHABAD vs. DCIT, CC-2, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assesse 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 The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Dt. 20/01/2023 In Appeal No. 10853/2018-19/It/Cit(A)-5/Ldh/2021-22 For The 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. 20/01/2023 Which Is Hereinafter Referred To As The Impugned Order.

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. 20/01/2023 which is hereinafter referred to as the impugned order. FACTUAL MATRIX 3. The assessee for the aforesaid business of running a hotel has been maintaining a complete

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

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

ITO, W-4(3), CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. RACHNA ARORA, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

250(6)) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’. 2 A.Y.2015-16 2. At the outset itself, it was pointed out that the solitary issue in the present appeal pertained to claim of exemption u/s 54 of the Act of Long Term Capital Gains earned by the assessee being invested in another property. That

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-

250 of the Act at first appellate stage. The relevant assessment year is 2011-12 and the corresponding previous year period is from 01.04.2010 to 31.03.2011. Factual Matrix Proceedings before ld. AO 2. The information was available with the Income Tax Department that the assessee had sold immovable property for a consideration of Rs.2,42,00,000/- during the Financial

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

house bearing No. 845 Sector 38-A, Chandigarh was originally allotted to Smt. Joginder Kaur on 03.04.1987. The assessee got 100% share of this property from his mother on 24.06.2010. He has sold the property for a total consideration of Rs.3,88,00,000/- during the accounting year relevant to assessment year 2018-19. Thus, the dispute relates to correct

KANWALDEEP KAUR,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

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

250/- in purchase consideration and the value adopted by Stamp Valuation Authority. The assessee's share in the property being 50%. It is the contention of assessee that the peoperty was agreed to be purchased in 30.07.2009 and a part of the consideration was paid then and therefore, the assessee's case was covered by the proviso to section56

INCOME TAX OFFICER, MOHALI vs. GURTEJ SINGH, MOHALI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

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

250/- in purchase consideration and the value adopted by Stamp Valuation Authority. The assessee's share in the property being 50%. It is the contention of assessee that the peoperty was agreed to be purchased in 30.07.2009 and a part of the consideration was paid then and therefore, the assessee's case was covered by the proviso to section56

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 No. 85, Village Rai Pur Kalan Kharar, SAS Nagar, Mohali "थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: CWJPS6206H अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent िनधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Tej Mohan Singh, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue by : Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr. DR सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date of Hearing : 06/02/2024 उदघोषणा क" तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 03/05/2024 आदेश

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

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Disposal Of Appeal.”

House No. 85, Village Rai Pur Kalan Kharar, SAS Nagar, Mohali "थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: CWJPS6206H अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent िनधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Tej Mohan Singh, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue by : Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr. DR सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date of Hearing : 06/02/2024 उदघोषणा क" तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 03/05/2024 आदेश

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

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Disposal Of Appeal.”

House No. 85, Village Rai Pur Kalan Kharar, SAS Nagar, Mohali "थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: CWJPS6206H अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent िनधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Tej Mohan Singh, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue by : Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr. DR सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date of Hearing : 06/02/2024 उदघोषणा क" तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 03/05/2024 आदेश

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 48 while

M/S PUNJAB TOURISM DEVELOPMENET CORPORATION LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-1(1), CHANDIGARH

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ao)

250(6) is not a speaking order. 2. That the Hon’ble Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals 1, Chandigarh has erred in upholding the addition of Rs. 32,20,737/- of administrative expenses without correctly appreciating the nature, quantum and reasonableness of the legitimate business expenditure incurred by the State Government undertaking in discharging its statutory and legitimate liabilities

M/S PUNJAB TOURISM DEVELOPMENET CORPORATION LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-1(1), CHANDIGARH

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ao)

250(6) is not a speaking order. 2. That the Hon’ble Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals 1, Chandigarh has erred in upholding the addition of Rs. 32,20,737/- of administrative expenses without correctly appreciating the nature, quantum and reasonableness of the legitimate business expenditure incurred by the State Government undertaking in discharging its statutory and legitimate liabilities

M/S PUNJAB TOURISM DEVELOPMENET CORPORATION LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-1(1), CHANDIGARH

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ao)

250(6) is not a speaking order. 2. That the Hon’ble Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals 1, Chandigarh has erred in upholding the addition of Rs. 32,20,737/- of administrative expenses without correctly appreciating the nature, quantum and reasonableness of the legitimate business expenditure incurred by the State Government undertaking in discharging its statutory and legitimate liabilities

M/S PUNJAB TOURISM DEVELOPMENET CORPORATION LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-1(1), CHANDIGARH

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ao)

250(6) is not a speaking order. 2. That the Hon’ble Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals 1, Chandigarh has erred in upholding the addition of Rs. 32,20,737/- of administrative expenses without correctly appreciating the nature, quantum and reasonableness of the legitimate business expenditure incurred by the State Government undertaking in discharging its statutory and legitimate liabilities