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.

29 results for “house property”+ Section 260clear

Sorted by relevance

Karnataka586Mumbai412Delhi390Bangalore215Jaipur81Telangana52Calcutta51Ahmedabad47Pune36Visakhapatnam29Chandigarh29Hyderabad28Kolkata26Cuttack26Chennai23Cochin17Lucknow14Indore14Rajkot14Surat12SC10Nagpur8Varanasi7Agra4Amritsar4Allahabad4Rajasthan3Jabalpur2Andhra Pradesh2Jodhpur2H.L. DATTU S.A. BOBDE1Himachal Pradesh1Patna1Punjab & Haryana1Raipur1ANIL R. DAVE SHIVA KIRTI SINGH1

Key Topics

Section 26371Section 13(3)24Section 143(3)23Exemption13Section 1112Section 2(15)8Addition to Income8Section 1477Section 1487

SH. JAI RAM,JAGADHARI vs. ITO, YAMUNANAGAR

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

ITA 366/CHANDI/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh26 Feb 2018AY 2007-08

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

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit GoelFor Respondent: Smt. Chandrakanta

260 ITR 491, the Hon'ble Court observed that however/the mode of 'transfer' as per section 2(47)(v) read with section 53A of TP Act is in the cases of such agreements which are in the nature of development agreements where the possession has been transferred the agreement has been made but the title has not been transferred

SH. AMAR SINGH,JAGADHARI vs. ITO, YAMUNANAGAR

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

ITA 365/CHANDI/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh26 Feb 2018AY 2007-08

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

Showing 1–20 of 29 · Page 1 of 2

Section 40A(3)6
Disallowance6
Bogus Purchases3
Bench:
For Appellant: Sh. Rohit GoelFor Respondent: Smt. Chandrakanta

260 ITR 491, the Hon'ble Court observed that however/the mode of 'transfer' as per section 2(47)(v) read with section 53A of TP Act is in the cases of such agreements which are in the nature of development agreements where the possession has been transferred the agreement has been made but the title has not been transferred

M/S HARBHAJAN SINGH & CO.,SANGRUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE, SANGRUR

Appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 727/CHANDI/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh29 Nov 2018AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri. Sanket SinglaFor Respondent: Smt. Chandrakanta
Section 143

house property. Likewise, a company may have income from other sources . . . The company may also, as in that case, keep the surplus funds in short-term deposits in order to earn interest. Such interest will be chargeable under section 56 of the Income-tax Act'. This court also emphasised the fact that the company was not bound to utilise

SHRI PRINCEPREETJIT SINGH,RANJIT NAGAR vs. PR.CIT-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 54/CHANDI/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Chandrajit Singh, CIT, DR(Virtual)
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54BSection 54F

sections are identical—ensuring that where capital gains are reinvested in qualifying assets, the benefit of exemption should be granted, even if such reinvestment occurs before formal execution of the transfer deed. This interpretation has received judicial recognition in multiple cases, including:  DCIT v Assa Singh in ITA No. 26/Asr/2015 dated 11.3.2016, ITAT Amritsar.  Ramesh Narhari Jakhadi

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

ITA 847/CHANDI/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh07 Oct 2020AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Ashok Goel, CAFor Respondent: Dr. G.S. Phani Kishore, CIT
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)

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

ITA 164/CHANDI/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh07 Oct 2020AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Ashok Goel, CAFor Respondent: Dr. G.S. Phani Kishore, CIT
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)

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

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

ITA 468/CHANDI/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh07 Oct 2020AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Ashok Goel, CAFor Respondent: Dr. G.S. Phani Kishore, CIT
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)

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

ITA 1310/CHANDI/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh14 Mar 2018AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri. J.S. BhasinFor Respondent: Smt. Chandrakanta
Section 10Section 11Section 2(15)

properties on commercial lines) has become the predominant activity to the detriment of the main mandate of the improvement Trusts namely town improvement. 7. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law in ignoring the intention and purpose behind the omission of section 10(20A) w.e.f. 04.04.2003 which earlier has expressly

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

The appeals of the Revenue are hereby dismissed

ITA 1309/CHANDI/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh14 Mar 2018AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri. J.S. BhasinFor Respondent: Smt. Chandrakanta
Section 10Section 11Section 2(15)

properties on commercial lines) has become the predominant activity to the detriment of the main mandate of the improvement Trusts namely town improvement. 7. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law in ignoring the intention and purpose behind the omission of section 10(20A) w.e.f. 04.04.2003 which earlier has expressly

SHRI DILRAJ SINGH DHALIWAL,CHANDIGARH vs. PR.CIT-1, CHANDIGARH

ITA 87/CHANDI/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh18 Nov 2022AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Sidharatha Sinha, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Nangia, CIT DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 194Section 263

260/- which was selected for limited scrutiny and after issuing notices under section 143(2) and 142(1) calling for necessary information/documentation, the assessment was completed by the Assessing officer under section 143(3) vide order dt. 14/09/2017 accepting the returned income. Subsequently, the assessment records were called for and examined by the Ld. Pr. CIT and a show cause

DCIT, C-1, (E), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S MANAV MANGAL SOCIETY, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the department are dismissed

ITA 29/CHANDI/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 May 2021AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Dahiya, CIT-DR
Section 13(3)

section 13(1)(c) is to judge the reasonableness of the payments made to the members of the society and secondly and more importantly, there is no finding of the AO that the society is not working towards the objects of education etc. as defined in its Memorandum and Rules and Regulations. No case of siphoning off of the funds

DCIT, C-1, (E), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S MANAV MANGAL SOCIETY, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the department are dismissed

ITA 30/CHANDI/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 May 2021AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Dahiya, CIT-DR
Section 13(3)

section 13(1)(c) is to judge the reasonableness of the payments made to the members of the society and secondly and more importantly, there is no finding of the AO that the society is not working towards the objects of education etc. as defined in its Memorandum and Rules and Regulations. No case of siphoning off of the funds

M/S MANAV MANGAL SOCIETY,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, C-1, (E), CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the department are dismissed

ITA 3/CHANDI/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 May 2021AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Dahiya, CIT-DR
Section 13(3)

section 13(1)(c) is to judge the reasonableness of the payments made to the members of the society and secondly and more importantly, there is no finding of the AO that the society is not working towards the objects of education etc. as defined in its Memorandum and Rules and Regulations. No case of siphoning off of the funds

M/S MANAV MANGAL SOCIETY,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, C-1, (E), CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the department are dismissed

ITA 2/CHANDI/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 May 2021AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Dahiya, CIT-DR
Section 13(3)

section 13(1)(c) is to judge the reasonableness of the payments made to the members of the society and secondly and more importantly, there is no finding of the AO that the society is not working towards the objects of education etc. as defined in its Memorandum and Rules and Regulations. No case of siphoning off of the funds

DCIT, C-1, (E), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S MANAV MANGAL SOCIETY, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the department are dismissed

ITA 28/CHANDI/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 May 2021AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Dahiya, CIT-DR
Section 13(3)

section 13(1)(c) is to judge the reasonableness of the payments made to the members of the society and secondly and more importantly, there is no finding of the AO that the society is not working towards the objects of education etc. as defined in its Memorandum and Rules and Regulations. No case of siphoning off of the funds

DCIT,CIRCLE-1(EXEMPTION), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S MANAV MANGAL SCHOOL( MANAV MANGAL SOCIETY), CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the department are dismissed

ITA 27/CHANDI/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 May 2021AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Dahiya, CIT-DR
Section 13(3)

section 13(1)(c) is to judge the reasonableness of the payments made to the members of the society and secondly and more importantly, there is no finding of the AO that the society is not working towards the objects of education etc. as defined in its Memorandum and Rules and Regulations. No case of siphoning off of the funds

DCIT, C-1, (E), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S MANAV MANGAL SOCIETY, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the department are dismissed

ITA 136/CHANDI/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 May 2021AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Dahiya, CIT-DR
Section 13(3)

section 13(1)(c) is to judge the reasonableness of the payments made to the members of the society and secondly and more importantly, there is no finding of the AO that the society is not working towards the objects of education etc. as defined in its Memorandum and Rules and Regulations. No case of siphoning off of the funds

DCIT, C-1, (E), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S MANAV MANGAL SOCIETY, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the department are dismissed

ITA 137/CHANDI/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 May 2021AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Dahiya, CIT-DR
Section 13(3)

section 13(1)(c) is to judge the reasonableness of the payments made to the members of the society and secondly and more importantly, there is no finding of the AO that the society is not working towards the objects of education etc. as defined in its Memorandum and Rules and Regulations. No case of siphoning off of the funds

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

SH. ARVAIL SINGH,SIRSA vs. PCIT, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 286/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

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

Section 143(3)Section 263

section 2 of section 56, clause(iv) in section 57 and clause (b) in Section 145A w.e.f. 01.04.2010. From the assessment year 2010-11 onwards, the amount of compensation or enhanced compensation is taxable as "income from other sources" after allowing deduction of a sum equal to 50% of such income in the year of receipt The Hon'ble Apex