HARYANA BUILDING AND OTHER CONSTRUCTION WORKERS WELFARE BOARD,PANCHKULA vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), CHANDIGARH

In the result, this appeal of the Assessee stands dismissed

property, to contract, and to sue or be sued in its own name, to\nexercise powers conferred on, and perform the functions assigned to it\nunder this Act.\n\n1. 3. Further, Section 24 of the Act (Relevant extract of Section 24 is\nmentioned at page 13 of the BOCW Act, 1996) lays down that the Board\nshall have

HARYANA BUILDING AND OTHER CONSTRUCTION WORKERS WELFARE BOARD,PANCHKULA vs. DCIT, EXEMPTION, CHANDIGARH

In the result, this appeal of the Assessee stands dismissed

property, to contract, and to sue or be sued in its own name, to\nexercise powers conferred on, and perform the functions assigned to it\nunder this Act.\n\n1. 3. Further, Section 24 of the Act (Relevant extract of Section 24 is\nmentioned at page 13 of the BOCW Act, 1996) lays down that the Board\nshall have

ACIT, CIRCLE, SHIMLA vs. SHRI VINOD SHARMA, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Dr Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1449/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 The Acit, Vs. Shri Vinod Sharma, बनाम B-1/3, Circle, Safdarjang Enclave, Shimla New Delhi 110029 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Abkps1560N अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent (Hybrid Mode ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Sh. Vishal Mohan, Sr. Advocate With Shri Ahninav Bazwaria, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Smt. Kusum Bansal, Cit Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 10.06.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09.07.2024

House property. Further, the assessee has claimed the deduction on amount invested till the due date of filing of return under section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act. Further, the reliance placed by the Assessing officer on the judgment of Honorable Delhi High Court in the case of Gulshan Malik (supra) is not relevant to the facts

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, as envisaged by a the parties. We are, therefore, of the view that this clause will also not rope in the present transaction. 24. The matter can also be viewed from a slightly different angle. Shri Vohra is right when he ha referred to Sections 45 and 48 of the Income Tax Act and has then argued that some

SH. RAJINDER SINGH BEDI,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT (INTL. TAXATION), CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 538/Chd/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Rajinder Singh Bedi, The Dcit, (Int.Taxation ), 1368, Sector 40-B, Vs Chandigarh. Chandigarh. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Afwpb3355A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate Revenue By : Smt. Kusum Bansal, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 09.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 04.06.2025 Hybrid Hearing O R D E R

Section 55(2)(b) of the Act. The dispute only relates to implication of the expression ‘Fair Market Value’ as appearing in the said proviso. The said expression postulates a price which a capital asset would ordinarily fetch if sold in the open market on the relevant day. Thus, it is well settled that concept of Fair Market Value envisages

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

46). These very facts on identical reasons recorded, it was submitted, have been considered by the ITAT in para 5 (internal page 5 of the aforesaid order and Paper Book page 47). Accordingly, it was his submission that the issue is identical and the assessment order following this order, it was his prayer may be quashed. It was ITA 49/CHD/2020

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

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Disposal Of Appeal.”

property in her name. It is a fact on record that the assessee is an illiterate housewife and has no source of income other than small interest on saving bank account under consideration during the F.Y. 2009-2010. In the assessment preceding under section 142(1) the assessee repeatedly said that the amount in the bank was the sale proceeds

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

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Disposal Of Appeal.”

property in her name. It is a fact on record that the assessee is an illiterate housewife and has no source of income other than small interest on saving bank account under consideration during the F.Y. 2009-2010. In the assessment preceding under section 142(1) the assessee repeatedly said that the amount in the bank was the sale proceeds

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

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Disposal Of Appeal.”

property in her name. It is a fact on record that the assessee is an illiterate housewife and has no source of income other than small interest on saving bank account under consideration during the F.Y. 2009-2010. In the assessment preceding under section 142(1) the assessee repeatedly said that the amount in the bank was the sale proceeds

DESH MITTER GAIND,PANCHKULA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, PANCHKULA, PANCHKULA, HARYANA

Bench: This Tribunal. The Assessee Is Aggrieved By The Order Of Cit(A) Bearing No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-

46,788/- 7. Short term capital gain not declared by the 74,20,230/- assessee Keeping in view of the above, the assessee has not declared short term capital gain) to the tune of Rs.74,20,230/- on the sale of residential property during the year under consideration. You are requested to please furnish your reply to the queries

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

Housing Board Colony,\nAmbala City-134003, Haryana\nस्थायी लेखा सं./ PAN NO: BZWPS3748D\nअपीलार्थी/Appellant\nनिर्धारिती की ओर से/Assessee by :\nNone\nराजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by :\nShri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR\nITO,\nWard-5(5), Chandigarh\nआयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 615 /Chd/2023\nनिर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2018-19\nबनाम\nAvtar Singh\nVill: Kaimbwala, Nayagaon\nChandigarh\nस्थायी लेखा

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.

section 57 of the Act amounting to Rs. 31,28,907/-. The A.O. asked the assessee to show cause as under: "....The Case was selected for reasons-'Large deduction claimed u/s 57' From the perusal of the computation of income it is found that you have claimed a deduction u/s 57ofRs. 31,28,907/- from the income from other sources

KAKA SINGH ALIAS GULJAR SINGH,PATIALA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , PATIALA

section 57.\nThe said provision reads thus:\n\"57. Deductions.-The income chargeable under the head 'Income from other\nsources' shall be computed after making the following deductions, namely :.\n(iv) in the case of income of the nature referred to in clause (viii) of sub-\nsection (2) of section 56, a deduction of a sum equal to fifty

SHRI SATISH KUMAR,SANGRUR vs. ITO, WARD, SANGRUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee’s are allowed

House Property, Capital Gain and other sources residing at C/o Sangrur Surgical and Laparoscopic Centre, Haripura Road, Sangrur. The appellant filed his return of income on dtd. 30/11/2015, declaring income of Rs. 1,59,87,590/- for the assessment year 2015-16 and paid total tax and interest of Rs. 37,78,150/- The return was processed

SMT. URMILA GARG,SANGRUR vs. ITO, WARD, SANGRUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee’s are allowed

House Property, Capital Gain and other sources residing at C/o Sangrur Surgical and Laparoscopic Centre, Haripura Road, Sangrur. The appellant filed his return of income on dtd. 30/11/2015, declaring income of Rs. 1,59,87,590/- for the assessment year 2015-16 and paid total tax and interest of Rs. 37,78,150/- The return was processed

SH. KRISHAN KUMAR,KHANNA vs. DCIT, CC-1, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

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

DCIT, C-,1 (E), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S PUNJAB MEDICAL FOUNDATION CHARITABLE TRUST, JALANDHAR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: S/Shri N.K. Saini, Vice- & Rajpal Yadav, Vice-"नधा"रण वष"/ Asstt.Year: 2014-15 Dcit, Cir.1(Exemption) M/S.Punjab Medical Foundation Chandigarh. Vs. Charitable Trust 63-64, Waryam Nagar Cool Road, Jalandhar Pan : Aaatp 5171 B (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri Sudhir Sehal, Advocate Assessee By Revenue By : Shri Ashok K. Khana, Addl.Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 18/11/2020 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/12/2020 आदेश/O R D E R

46,61,318 Dr. Satish Mishra : Rs. 80,28,920 4.21 Further, it is seen that payments in the same range have been made to the doctor R.S. Chahal who is a reputed professional in his area of Specialization and also payments of similar amounts or even higher amount have been made to other doctors as well. The 14 appellant

MAHAKALI DEVELOPERS AND RESORTS PRIVATE LIMITED,SCF vs. PCIT PATIALA, AAYKAR BHAWAN

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahay

house property income at Rs.17,14,387/- in ITA No.294 & 295/CHD/2024 A.Y.2013-14 & 2015-16 3 assessment year 2013-14 and Rs.20,47,661/-. It has claimed deduction under Section 24(1) of the Income Tax Act of Rs.7,34,738/- in assessment year 2013-14 and Rs.8,77,569/- in assessment year 2015-16. In the opinion