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)

30,25,045/-, 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 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

ROPAR DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE UNION LIMITED,MOHALI vs. PCIT, CHANDIGAR-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: SHRI AAKASH DEEPJAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

30% from the annual rental values u/s 23 from these properties. In this regard, it is pertinent to mention here that the definition of "Owner of house property", annual charge", etc defined under Income Tax Act, 1961 is as follows: - ITA 360/CHD/2023 A.Y. 2018-19 3 27. For the purposes of sections

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

30 SOT 11 (Bang.); CIT Vs. Geetadevi Pasari [2009] 17 DTR 280 (Bom); ACIT Vs. A.R. Dahiya [2004] 89 ITD 377 (Chd.); CIT Vs. Vimal Kumar Surana [2004] 269 ITR 288 (Raj.) and Anusandhan Investment Ltd. Vs. ITO [2010] 40 SOT 205 (Mum.). On perusal of these judgments, it is noticed that the facts on these cases are distinguishable from

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

30 SOT 11 (Bang.); CIT Vs. Geetadevi Pasari [2009] 17 DTR 280 (Bom); ACIT Vs. A.R. Dahiya [2004] 89 ITD 377 (Chd.); CIT Vs. Vimal Kumar Surana [2004] 269 ITR 288 (Raj.) and Anusandhan Investment Ltd. Vs. ITO [2010] 40 SOT 205 (Mum.). On perusal of these judgments, it is noticed that the facts on these cases are distinguishable from

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

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Disposal Of Appeal.”

section 69 of IT Act. 30. While making addition of Rs. 1,73,10,000/-, the Assessing officer had duly ignored the assessee's plea that land was sold for a sum of Rs. 2,30,00,000/- on the ground that assessee had not filed any evidence. However the learned CIT(A) had treated it as if assessee

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

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Disposal Of Appeal.”

section 69 of IT Act. 30. While making addition of Rs. 1,73,10,000/-, the Assessing officer had duly ignored the assessee's plea that land was sold for a sum of Rs. 2,30,00,000/- on the ground that assessee had not filed any evidence. However the learned CIT(A) had treated it as if assessee

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

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Disposal Of Appeal.”

section 69 of IT Act. 30. While making addition of Rs. 1,73,10,000/-, the Assessing officer had duly ignored the assessee's plea that land was sold for a sum of Rs. 2,30,00,000/- on the ground that assessee had not filed any evidence. However the learned CIT(A) had treated it as if assessee

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

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.

Section 153A were not applicable and the alleged notice issued U/s.l53A was unauthorized, illegal and unlawful and, therefore, the assessment made U/s.l53Ais also unjust, unlawful and bad in law. 6. That in any case, the alleged statement of Karnail Singh recorded on 09.03.2012 could not be treated as search executed on Karnail Singh. 7. That the income was rightly declared

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.

Section 153A were not applicable and the alleged notice issued U/s.l53A was unauthorized, illegal and unlawful and, therefore, the assessment made U/s.l53Ais also unjust, unlawful and bad in law. 6. That in any case, the alleged statement of Karnail Singh recorded on 09.03.2012 could not be treated as search executed on Karnail Singh. 7. That the income was rightly declared

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.

Section 153A were not applicable and the alleged notice issued U/s.l53A was unauthorized, illegal and unlawful and, therefore, the assessment made U/s.l53Ais also unjust, unlawful and bad in law. 6. That in any case, the alleged statement of Karnail Singh recorded on 09.03.2012 could not be treated as search executed on Karnail Singh. 7. That the income was rightly declared

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.

Section 153A were not applicable and the alleged notice issued U/s.l53A was unauthorized, illegal and unlawful and, therefore, the assessment made U/s.l53Ais also unjust, unlawful and bad in law. 6. That in any case, the alleged statement of Karnail Singh recorded on 09.03.2012 could not be treated as search executed on Karnail Singh. 7. That the income was rightly declared

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.

Section 153A were not applicable and the alleged notice issued U/s.l53A was unauthorized, illegal and unlawful and, therefore, the assessment made U/s.l53Ais also unjust, unlawful and bad in law. 6. That in any case, the alleged statement of Karnail Singh recorded on 09.03.2012 could not be treated as search executed on Karnail Singh. 7. That the income was rightly declared

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.

Section 153A were not applicable and the alleged notice issued U/s.l53A was unauthorized, illegal and unlawful and, therefore, the assessment made U/s.l53Ais also unjust, unlawful and bad in law. 6. That in any case, the alleged statement of Karnail Singh recorded on 09.03.2012 could not be treated as search executed on Karnail Singh. 7. That the income was rightly declared

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

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 263 of the Act is beyond his competence. 2. That the Ld. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax has failed to consider that the case of the assessee was picked up for limited scrutiny and the issues in that regard including sale/purchase of property, indexed cost, etc. were thoroughly looked into and as such the assessment order passed was neither

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.

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