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

ITO, W-4, PANCHKULA vs. SMT. SEEMA DHILLON, PANCHKULA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Shri B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2008-09

Housing Building Society on similar and identical facts. The Hon'ble Court has summarized the conclusion at para 46 of the said order as under:- "46. We summarize our conclusions as under.- 1. Perusal of the JDA dated 25.02.2007 read with sale deeds dated 02.03.2007 and 25.04.2C07 in respect of 3.08 acres and 4.62 acres respectively would reveal that

ITO, W-4, PANCHKULA vs. MRS. SUNITA, PANCHKULA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Shri B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2008-09

Housing Building Society on similar and identical facts. The Hon'ble Court has summarized the conclusion at para 46 of the said order as under:- "46. We summarize our conclusions as under.- 1. Perusal of the JDA dated 25.02.2007 read with sale deeds dated 02.03.2007 and 25.04.2C07 in respect of 3.08 acres and 4.62 acres respectively would reveal that

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

Housing & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Hon'ble High Court gave a direction to the Superintendent of Police, Yamuna Nagar to enquire into the complaints of petitioners vide order dated 31.05.2007, copy is placed on record. 11(2) The ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that only after intervention of the High Court and District authorities, the assessee is able

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

Housing & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Hon'ble High Court gave a direction to the Superintendent of Police, Yamuna Nagar to enquire into the complaints of petitioners vide order dated 31.05.2007, copy is placed on record. 11(2) The ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that only after intervention of the High Court and District authorities, the assessee is able

ITO, MOHALI vs. SH. DALHIT SINGH, MOHALI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and Cross Appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2008-09

Housing Building Society on similar and identical facts. The Hon'ble Court has summarized the conclusion at para 46 of the said order as under:- "46. We summarize our conclusions as under.- 1. Perusal of the JDA dated 25.02.2007 read with sale deeds dated 02.03.2007 and 25.04.2C07 in respect of 3.08 acres and 4.62 acres respectively would reveal that

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

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

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

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

Housing Board, Hyderabad Vs. DIT (E), (Hyderabad ) in ITA No. 110/Hyd/2008 vide its judgment dated 03.06.2015 ITA No. 1382/Chd/2016- Chandigarh Lawn Tennis Association, Chandigarh 13 (f) Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority Vs. ACIT (Exemptions), (Ahmedabad) in ITA No. 712 and 711/Ahd/2013 and ITA No. 647 and 2335/Ahd/2014 vide its d judgment dated 19.04.2016. 9. Reliance has also been placed

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