SH.ASHOK KUMAR GUPTA,LUDHIANA vs. PR.CIT-1, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

property. Hence claim of deduction under section 54 of I.T. Act 1961 is not correct and also the AO has wrongly allowed the benefit of deduction u/s 54 of Income Tax Act, 1961 to ttie extent of Rs.2,05,93,405/- (3,32,39,346-1,26,43,941 )on account of modification in residential house bearing House

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

property u/s 54F, it was submitted, was of Rs. 72,50,000/-. Inviting attention to copy of the Purchase Deed appended at pages 12 to 23 of House No. 3113, Sector 28D. It was submitted that these were filed before the AO as well as the PCIT. 5.4. In the said background, in the hearings which continued before

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

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

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 is it income from 'other sources' because the provisions of sections 69, 69A, 69B and 69C treat unexplained investments, unexplained money, bullion, etc., and unexplained expenditure as deemed income where the nature and source of investment, acquisition or expenditure, as the case may be, have not been

DCIT, CIRCLE, PATIALA vs. M/S PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LTD., PATIALA

In the result, ground no. 1 & 3 of the Revenue’s appeal is allowed and ground no

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

31,165 Assessed as income from other sources in the first appeal 28.09.2022 proceedings. No further appeal preferred by the assessee. 9. Regarding reading and billing processing charges of water supply and sewerage amounting to Rs. 7,27,328/-, it was reiterated by the ld AR that the said amount is in the nature of collection charges for collection

TARUN 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

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

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’, (iii) ‘profits and gains from business or profession’, (iv) ‘capital gains’ and (v) ‘income from other sources’ – cannot at all be adjusted against unexplained investment or expenditure. What is necessary as per Hon. Gujarat High Court is that source of acquisition of asset or expenditure should be clearly identifiable. In the case before Hon. Gujarat High Court

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

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

SANJEEV KUMAR GOYAL,LUDHIANA vs. ACIT, CC-2, LUDHIANA

In the result, all these three appeals are hereby allowed

Bench: The Disposal Of The Present Appeal.

31,28,907/-) was offered to tax for the A.Y. 2016-17. 3. That in the show cause notice, you have stated that the assessee has claimed deduction for Rs. 4,26,719/- for loan for house property. In fact, the said interest was paid for "Loan against Property" instead of loan for house property as stated

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

31. The major change, in our view, brought by amendment to section 11(4A), is that earlier the phrase “not involving the carrying on of any activity for profit” was applicable to the fourth limb of definition of “charitable purposes” as per the provisions of section 2(15) of the 1961 act i.e. in respect of the institutions carrying

KESHAV DUTT SHREEDHAR,SHIMLA vs. DCIT, SHIMLA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

house property purchased be the assessee. The copy of allotment letter is being annexed herewith for your kind verification” (emphasis supplied) 2.2 The Ld. AR inviting atte ntion to the supporting fact referred to in para 8 highlighted in the reproduction made ITA 8 /CHD/2016 A.Y. 2008-09 Page 4 of 15 above referred to paper book page

M/S VEER ENTERPRISES,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-III, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

house property’, (iii) ‘profits and gains from business or profession’, (iv) ‘capital gains’ and (v) ‘income from other sources’ – cannot at all be adjusted against unexplained investment or expenditure. What is necessary as per Hon. Gujarat High Court is that source of acquisition of asset or expenditure should be clearly identifiable. In the case before Hon. Gujarat High Court