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

29-12-2017. The assessee is aggrieved by computation of Capital Gains and denial of deduction u/s 54. The grounds of appeal read as under: - 1. On the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law the assessing officer was incorrect and unjustified in: i) Disallowing indexed cost of construction of Rs.54,07,089 on the house sold

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 on independent plot in posh area. 15. The Ld. AR further submitted that PCIT has placed reliance on gift deed dated 8/10/2009 executed in favour of the assessee by his father. Stamp duty is charged on minimum collector for stamp duty purposes and it cannot reflect FMV as on 1-4-2001. The collector value is always fixed

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

29,357/- within the grace period. In the written submission filed before the Tribunal, assessee has reproduced the complete details in tabular form at page No. 8 and 9. It has provided that Sr.No. 14 onwards, the payments have been made by the assessee within due date because grace period of 5 days was available with the assessee. In other

KARNAIL SINGH,UK vs. JCIT (OSD) INTL. TAXATION, CIRCLE, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stands allowed

house property”. Thereafter, the AO analyze the provisions of Article 12 of Indo-UK DTAA as well as definition of interest as per Section 2(28A) of the Act and has held that the money paid by the assessee to M/s Omaxe Ltd. is a capital investment for purchase of the property, the assessee will get back the capital asset

KARNAIL SINGH,UK vs. JCIT (OSD) INTL. TAXATION, CIRCLE, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stands allowed

house property”. Thereafter, the AO analyze the provisions of Article 12 of Indo-UK DTAA as well as definition of interest as per Section 2(28A) of the Act and has held that the money paid by the assessee to M/s Omaxe Ltd. is a capital investment for purchase of the property, the assessee will get back the capital asset

KARNAIL SINGH,UK vs. JCIT (OSD) INTL. TAXATION, CIRCLE, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stands allowed

house property”. Thereafter, the AO analyze the provisions of Article 12 of Indo-UK DTAA as well as definition of interest as per Section 2(28A) of the Act and has held that the money paid by the assessee to M/s Omaxe Ltd. is a capital investment for purchase of the property, the assessee will get back the capital asset

KARNAIL SINGH,UK vs. JCIT (OSD) INTL. TAXATION, CIRCLE, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stands allowed

house property”. Thereafter, the AO analyze the provisions of Article 12 of Indo-UK DTAA as well as definition of interest as per Section 2(28A) of the Act and has held that the money paid by the assessee to M/s Omaxe Ltd. is a capital investment for purchase of the property, the assessee will get back the capital asset

KARNAIL SINGH,UK vs. JCIT (OSD) INTL. TAXATION, CIRCLE, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stands allowed

house property”. Thereafter, the AO analyze the provisions of Article 12 of Indo-UK DTAA as well as definition of interest as per Section 2(28A) of the Act and has held that the money paid by the assessee to M/s Omaxe Ltd. is a capital investment for purchase of the property, the assessee will get back the capital asset

KARNAIL SINGH,UK vs. JCIT (OSD) INTL. TAXATION, CIRCLE, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stands allowed

house property”. Thereafter, the AO analyze the provisions of Article 12 of Indo-UK DTAA as well as definition of interest as per Section 2(28A) of the Act and has held that the money paid by the assessee to M/s Omaxe Ltd. is a capital investment for purchase of the property, the assessee will get back the capital asset

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

Section 54, there are time limits wherein the assessee is required to purchase a new residential property within one year before or within two years after the date of transfer of the original residential house property or construct a new residential property within three years from the date of transfer of the original residential house property. The ld PCIT observed

M/S FATEH RESORTS PVT.LTD,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO WARD-1(4), CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed to the above

29,120/-but no income under any head has been shown except agriculture income of Rs.l,2G.GQM- Therefore, I have reason to believe that the rental income from the-house property has escaped assessment within the meaning of section

KARNAIL SINGH vs. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CHANDIGARH

In the result, ground no. 9 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue

Bench: Us.

29-A, Nottingham Road, Nuthall, Chandigarh Nottingham NG161D(UK) "थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: CMZPS3965B अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Sanat Kapoor, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue by : Shri Vivek Nangia, CIT DR सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 28/09/2022 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement : 07/11/2022 आदेश/Order

KARNAIL SINGH vs. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CHANDIGARH

In the result, ground no. 9 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue

Bench: Us.

29-A, Nottingham Road, Nuthall, Chandigarh Nottingham NG161D(UK) "थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: CMZPS3965B अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Sanat Kapoor, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue by : Shri Vivek Nangia, CIT DR सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 28/09/2022 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement : 07/11/2022 आदेश/Order

KARNAIL SINGH vs. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CHANDIGARH

In the result, ground no. 9 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue

Bench: Us.

29-A, Nottingham Road, Nuthall, Chandigarh Nottingham NG161D(UK) "थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: CMZPS3965B अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Sanat Kapoor, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue by : Shri Vivek Nangia, CIT DR सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 28/09/2022 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement : 07/11/2022 आदेश/Order

KARNAIL SINGH vs. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CHANDIGARH

In the result, ground no. 9 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue

Bench: Us.

29-A, Nottingham Road, Nuthall, Chandigarh Nottingham NG161D(UK) "थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: CMZPS3965B अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Sanat Kapoor, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue by : Shri Vivek Nangia, CIT DR सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 28/09/2022 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement : 07/11/2022 आदेश/Order

KARNAIL SINGH vs. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CHANDIGARH

In the result, ground no. 9 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue

Bench: Us.

29-A, Nottingham Road, Nuthall, Chandigarh Nottingham NG161D(UK) "थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: CMZPS3965B अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Sanat Kapoor, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue by : Shri Vivek Nangia, CIT DR सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 28/09/2022 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement : 07/11/2022 आदेश/Order

KARNAIL SINGH vs. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CHANDIGARH

In the result, ground no. 9 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue

Bench: Us.

29-A, Nottingham Road, Nuthall, Chandigarh Nottingham NG161D(UK) "थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: CMZPS3965B अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Sanat Kapoor, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue by : Shri Vivek Nangia, CIT DR सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 28/09/2022 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement : 07/11/2022 आदेश/Order

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

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

property and deduction u/s 57 of the Act were duly called for by the AO and the assessees ITA Nos. 140 to 143-Chd-2021 Sh. Sanjay Jain and Others, Ludhiana 26 made due compliance in this regard too. It is also not the case of the Department that the assessees did not discharge their onus before

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

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

property and deduction u/s 57 of the Act were duly called for by the AO and the assessees ITA Nos. 140 to 143-Chd-2021 Sh. Sanjay Jain and Others, Ludhiana 26 made due compliance in this regard too. It is also not the case of the Department that the assessees did not discharge their onus before