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

section 2(15) there is a paradigm shift from the earlier position. Though, some of the decisions of the Delhi High Court as referred to above and that of the Pb. & Hry. High Court in the case of The Tribune Trust (supra) have been delivered subsequent to the introduction of the second proviso to section

SHRI BALRAM KRISHAN,CHANDIGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

houses of the managing director and other directors. In such a case, when the managing director or any other persons were found to be not in possession of any incriminating material, the question of examining them by the authorised officer during the course of search and recording any statement from them by invoking the powers under section 132(4

SHRI PARDEEP KUMAR JAIN,ZIRAKPUR vs. ITO, W-2(3), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 190/Chd/2019 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Shri Pradeep Kumar Jain, The Ito, Ward 2(3), बनाम Chandigarh Flat No.222, Orbit Apartments, 6Th Floor, Zirakpur "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Advpj6719P अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

property and if such investment is made within the period stipulated therein, than section 54F(4) is not at all attracted. We may clarify here that provisions of section 54(2) are almost identically worded as in section 54F(4) of the Act. Admittedly, in this case, the assessee has invested the amount for the purchase / construction of the house

AJAY KUMAR,FATEHABAD, HARYANA vs. ITO, WARD-1, FATEHABAD, FATEHABAD, HARYANA

4(1)\nChandigarh\nस्थायी लेखा सं./ PAN NO: AJSPG9695G\nअपीलार्थी/Appellant\nनिर्धारिती की ओर से/Assessee by :\nNone\nराजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by :\nShri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR\nआयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 180 /Chd/ 2023\nनिर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2018-19\nShri Pargat Singh\nVPO-Ravan Hera, The: Dhand,\nDist: Kaithal, Haryana-132103\nबनाम\nThe ITO\nWard

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-I, CHANDIGARH , CHANDIGARH vs. MS SCOTT EDIL ADVANCE RESEARCH LABORATOTRIES AND EDUCATION LTD., , CHANDIGARH

houses of the managing director and other directors. In such a case, when the managing director or any other persons were found to be not in possession of any incriminating material, the question of examining them by the authorised officer during the course of search and recording any statement from them by invoking the powers under section 132(4

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SANJEEV AGGARWAL , CHANDIGARH

houses of the managing director and other directors. In such a case, when the managing director or any other persons were found to be not in possession of any incriminating material, the question of examining them by the authorised officer during the course of search and recording any statement from them by invoking the powers under section 132(4

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

M/S FATEH HOMES PRIVATE LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO WARD-1(4), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

4)- Where the property referred to in sub-section (2} consists of more than one house— (a) the provisions of that

SHRI BALRAM KRISHAN,CHANDIGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

houses of the managing director and\nother directors. In such a case, when the managing director or any other persons were\nfound to be not in possession of any incriminating material, the question of examining\nthem by the authorised officer during the course of search and recording any statement\nfrom them by invoking the powers under section 132(4

SCOTT EDIL ADVANCE RESEARCH LABORATORIES AND EDUCATION LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH

houses of the managing director and\nother directors. In such a case, when the managing director or any other persons were\nfound to be not in possession of any incriminating material, the question of examining\nthem by the authorised officer during the course of search and recording any statement\nfrom them by invoking the powers under section 132(4

SCOTT EDIL PHARMACIA LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH

houses of the managing director and\nother directors. In such a case, when the managing director or any other persons were\nfound to be not in possession of any incriminating material, the question of examining\nthem by the authorised officer during the course of search and recording any statement\nfrom them by invoking the powers under section 132(4

DCIT, CC 1, CHANDIGARH , CHANDIGARH vs. SANJEEV AGGARWAL , CHANDIGARH

The appeals of the revenue are treated as dismissed

houses of the managing director and\nother directors. In such a case, when the managing director or any other persons were\nfound to be not in possession of any incriminating material, the question of examining\nthem by the authorised officer during the course of search and recording any statement\nfrom them by invoking the powers under section 132(4

SHRI BALRAM KRISHAN,CHANDIGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

houses of the managing director and\nother directors. In such a case, when the managing director or any other persons were\nfound to be not in possession of any incriminating material, the question of examining\nthem by the authorised officer during the course of search and recording any statement\nfrom them by invoking the powers under section 132(4

SCOTT EDIL PHARMACIA LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH

houses of the managing director and\nother directors. In such a case, when the managing director or any other persons were\nfound to be not in possession of any incriminating material, the question of examining\nthem by the authorised officer during the course of search and recording any statement\nfrom them by invoking the powers under section 132(4

SCOTT EDIL ADVANCE RESEARCH LABORATORIES AND EDUCATION LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH

houses of the managing director and\nother directors. In such a case, when the managing director or any other persons were\nfound to be not in possession of any incriminating material, the question of examining\nthem by the authorised officer during the course of search and recording any statement\nfrom them by invoking the powers under section 132(4

SHRI BALRAM KRISHAN,CHANDIGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

houses of the managing director and\nother directors. In such a case, when the managing director or any other persons were\nfound to be not in possession of any incriminating material, the question of examining\nthem by the authorised officer during the course of search and recording any statement\nfrom them by invoking the powers under section 132(4

SCOTT EDIL PHARMACIA LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH

houses of the managing director and\nother directors. In such a case, when the managing director or any other persons were\nfound to be not in possession of any incriminating material, the question of examining\nthem by the authorised officer during the course of search and recording any statement\nfrom them by invoking the powers under section 132(4

MAXPORT INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

houses of the managing director and\nother directors. In such a case, when the managing director or any other persons were\nfound to be not in possession of any incriminating material, the question of examining\nthem by the authorised officer during the course of search and recording any statement\nfrom them by invoking the powers under section 132(4