DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), CHANDIGARH vs. POONAM KHETRAPAL SINGH, CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1000/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2021-22 Dcit, Poonam Khetrapal Singh, बनाम Circle 1(1), H. No 816, Sector 16, Chandigarh Chandigarh. Vs. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Anqps6367R अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent ( Hybrid Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Sh. Ashish Kumar Singh, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Smt Kusum Bansal, Cit Dr (Virtual Mode) सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 15-05-2025 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 06-08-2025 आदेश/Order Per Krinwant Sahay, Am: Appeal In This Case Has Been Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 29.7.2024 Of Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi.

Property for assessment year under consideration i.e. A.Y 2021-22 itself, has been held to be not owned by the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in facts and law in 3 allowing the deduction u/s 54F of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ignoring the facts that assessee was owning more than one residential house other than new asset

SHOBHA SHARMA,SIRSA vs. ITO-WARD-3, SIRSA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

property sold was Rs. 7,99,875/- thus the assessee earned LTCG of Rs. 21,87,125/- which was claimed to be exempt by virtue of the provisions of Section 54F of the Act. It was submitted that the assessee deposited the amount of net consideration in the capital gain account scheme, therefore, the A.O. was not justified in disallowing

YASH PAL JINDAL, 1233, SECTOR 10, AMBALA CITY, HARYANA,HARYANA vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, NFAC DELHI, JAO, INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, AMBALA, HARYANA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurposes

house property, other sources and a\nsmall business. The assessment was reopened under section 147 and\nconcluded under section 144 r.w.s.144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the\nAct\"). The AO made an addition of Rs.15,00,000 under section 69A of the Act\non account of unexplained cash deposits made into the assessee's bank\naccount.\n3.\nThe assessee

SUBHASH,YAMUNANAGAR vs. ITO, WARD-3, YAMUNANAGAR, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A) & One Of The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Relates To Non-Grant Of Deduction Under Section 54B & 54F Of The Act. 3. During The Course Of Appellate Proceedings, The Assessee Also Moved An Application Under Section 46A Of The Act Which Was Forwarded To The Ao & Remand

46A of the Act which was forwarded to the AO and remand report was also called and after considering the submissions of the assessee, the Ld. CIT(A) has returned a findings that the assessee is eligible for deduction under section 54F of the Act to the extent of expenditure incurred for the construction of the house amounting

RAMESH KUMAR,NEW DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3, PANCHKULA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

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

section 144 was also issued to the assessee, however in absence of any explanation/submission filed by the assessee, the AO proceeded and completed the assessment proceedings stating that since the assessee has not furnished any explanation in respect of the sale of the property amounting to Rs. 3,15,00,000/- and has not provided the detail of capital gains

M/S ANSHUL GOYAL LAND & HOUSING LTD.,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, C-VII, LUDHIANA

The appeals of the assessee is hereby allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2010-11

Housing Ltd. C-VII, Ludhiana Vill- Gill, Ludhiana PAN No. AAFCA7899D Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/s Anshul Goyal Vs. The ACIT Plot No. 29/1, The Mall C-VII, Ludhiana Ludhiana (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri. Pankaj Bhalla Revenue By : Shri. Surinder Meena Date of hearing : 22/05/2018 Date of Pronouncement : 25/05/2018 ORDER PER BENCH: Both the above appeals have been filed

SH. ANSHUL GOYAL,LUDHIANA vs. ACIT, C-VII, LUDHIANA

The appeals of the assessee is hereby allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2010-11

Housing Ltd. C-VII, Ludhiana Vill- Gill, Ludhiana PAN No. AAFCA7899D Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/s Anshul Goyal Vs. The ACIT Plot No. 29/1, The Mall C-VII, Ludhiana Ludhiana (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri. Pankaj Bhalla Revenue By : Shri. Surinder Meena Date of hearing : 22/05/2018 Date of Pronouncement : 25/05/2018 ORDER PER BENCH: Both the above appeals have been filed

SH. AMAN SETH,LUDHIANA vs. ITO, W-1(1), LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

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

house 40,35,030/- 40,35,030/- 40,35,030/- 3,74,047/- Total 8,61,473/- 3.5 Accordingly, interest amounting Rs.8,61,473/- debited in Profit and Loss account is disallowed u/s 36(l)(iii) of the I.T. Act, 1961 being fund used for non business purpose. Accordingly, interest expenses debited in Profit and loss account amounting

CT EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,JALANDHAR vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is Partly Allowed for\nStatistical Purposes as per the directions above

property which is necessary for the attainment of object of society.\nIn this regard it is submitted that Hon'ble CIT(A) allowed this ground of appeal for\nstatistical purpose for the reason that assessee submitted documents which were\nnot filed with Ld. AO.\nSir, it is incorrect that assessee did not file documents with Ld. AO. In order

SH. PARDEEP KUMAR,PANCHKULA vs. ITO, WARD 3, PANCHKULA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the addition is restricted to Rs

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

house and therefore the file of the assessee got misplaced during shifting. He undertakes that as soon as the file is traced he will return the same. The assessee appeared before the AO on 30/12/2016 but no source was furnished. Being the time barring matter no further date were provided to the assessee by the AO and he has passed

SHRI BALJINDER SINGH,MOHALI vs. ITO, W-6(4), MOHALI

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed for statistical purposes

Property) Rs- 35,95,440/- 3. Share of Investment in Agricultural land purchased as per copy of purchased deed Enclosed Rs. 24,35,850/- Balance Amount Rs. 7,07,053/- AO placed reliance on the fact that the land of the Appellant is situated within 1 km from the NH-1-21 taking the land as capital assets

SHRI KESAR SINGH,MOHALI vs. ITO, W-6(4), MOHALI

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed for statistical purposes

Property) Rs- 35,95,440/- 3. Share of Investment in Agricultural land purchased as per copy of purchased deed Enclosed Rs. 24,35,850/- Balance Amount Rs. 7,07,053/- AO placed reliance on the fact that the land of the Appellant is situated within 1 km from the NH-1-21 taking the land as capital assets

SHRI DARSHAN SINGH,MOHALI vs. ITO, W-6(4), MOHALI

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed for statistical purposes

Property) Rs- 35,95,440/- 3. Share of Investment in Agricultural land purchased as per copy of purchased deed Enclosed Rs. 24,35,850/- Balance Amount Rs. 7,07,053/- AO placed reliance on the fact that the land of the Appellant is situated within 1 km from the NH-1-21 taking the land as capital assets

SHRI GURDEEP SINGH,MOHALI vs. ITO, W-6(4), MOHALI

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed for statistical purposes

Property) Rs- 35,95,440/- 3. Share of Investment in Agricultural land purchased as per copy of purchased deed Enclosed Rs. 24,35,850/- Balance Amount Rs. 7,07,053/- AO placed reliance on the fact that the land of the Appellant is situated within 1 km from the NH-1-21 taking the land as capital assets

SHRI DIDAR SINGH,MOHALI vs. ITO, W-6(4), MOHALI

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed for statistical purposes

Property) Rs- 35,95,440/- 3. Share of Investment in Agricultural land purchased as per copy of purchased deed Enclosed Rs. 24,35,850/- Balance Amount Rs. 7,07,053/- AO placed reliance on the fact that the land of the Appellant is situated within 1 km from the NH-1-21 taking the land as capital assets

PAWAN KUMAR SINGLA,PANCHKULA vs. DCIT, CC-I, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the assessee’s appeal on the various grounds raised is dismissed

Bench: Final Hearing.

House No. 105, Sector 8 Chandigarh Panchkula "ायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: ACBPS0996C अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ"/Respondent िनधा"रती की ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Ajay Jain, C.A राज"की ओर से/ Revenue by : Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 16/01/2025 उदघोषणा की तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 11/04/2025 आदेश/Order PER KRINWANT SAHAY, AM: Both

KHANNA INFRABUILD PRIVATE LIMITED ,LUDHIANA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL CIRCLE)-2 LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA

In the result, the ground of appeal is allowed

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

property, the report of the DVO cannot form the basis of any addition on the part of the revenue. In the present case there is no evidence other than the report of the DVO and, therefore, the same cannot be relied upon for making an addition. In these circumstances, the question which has been framed is decided in favour

KHANNA INFRABUILD PRIVATE LIMITED 2000-1A, SUKHDEV NAGAR FEROZEPUR ROAD, LUDHIANA,LUDHIANA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA

In the result, the ground of appeal is allowed

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

property, the report of the DVO cannot form the basis of any addition on the part of the revenue. In the present case there is no evidence other than the report of the DVO and, therefore, the same cannot be relied upon for making an addition. In these circumstances, the question which has been framed is decided in favour