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

section 12B, i.e., sale, exchange or transfer. In the context 'transfer' meant effective conveyance of the capital asset to the transferee. Delivery of possession of immovable property could not by itself be treated as equivalent to conveyance of the immovable property." The Supreme Court also held that (ibid): "The entries in the account books of the appellant

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

section 12B, i.e., sale, exchange or transfer. In the context 'transfer' meant effective conveyance of the capital asset to the transferee. Delivery of possession of immovable property could not by itself be treated as equivalent to conveyance of the immovable property." The Supreme Court also held that (ibid): "The entries in the account books of the appellant

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

property in favour of Tata Housing Development Company Limited (THDC) and so 'transferror the purposes of section 2(47)(v) of the Income

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 in favour of Tata Housing Development Company Limited (THDC) and so 'transfer' for the purposes of section 2(47

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

In the result appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sanjay Gargthe Ito Vs. Smt. Seema Bishnoi Ward-4, Panchkula H.No. 906, Sec-08, Panchkula

47,51,100/-. In the agreement it is clearly mentioned that the appellant purchased the land with residential house built over there. As per the section 54F of the Act, the assessee is eligible for claiming the exemption under section 54F if assessee invest the sum in purchasing or construction of the house. In the present case the appellant purchased

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

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, has within a period of one year before or two years after the date of such transfer or within a period of three years, constructs a residential house, the capital gains will not be charged to tax upto the extent of the amount spent on the purchase or construction of residential house. Sub Section (1) of section

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

SH. CHARANJIT SINGH ATWAL,LUDHIANA vs. ITO, LUDHIANA

In the result, the penalty of the assessee is hereby allowed and that of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year : 2007-08 Sh. Charanjit Singh Atwal, Vs. The Ito, Ward 6(1), 484-A, Model Town Extension, Ludhiana Ludhiana

Housing Development Company Ltd. (THDC). Under the JDA, it was agreed that HASH and THDC viz., the developers, will undertake to develop 21.2 acres of land owned and registered in the name of the society. The agreed consideration was of Rs. 237,03,75,000/- (Rs. 106,42,50,000/- in cash and Rs. 103,61,25,000/- in kind

ITO, LUDHIANA vs. SH. CHARANJIT SINGH ATWAL, LUDHIANA

In the result, the penalty of the assessee is hereby allowed and that of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year : 2007-08 Sh. Charanjit Singh Atwal, Vs. The Ito, Ward 6(1), 484-A, Model Town Extension, Ludhiana Ludhiana

Housing Development Company Ltd. (THDC). Under the JDA, it was agreed that HASH and THDC viz., the developers, will undertake to develop 21.2 acres of land owned and registered in the name of the society. The agreed consideration was of Rs. 237,03,75,000/- (Rs. 106,42,50,000/- in cash and Rs. 103,61,25,000/- in kind

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-

house property, you intend to apply the provisions of Section 50C in the case of assessee In this regard, we wish to submit that the Agreement to Sell of this property was entered by the assessee in January, 2010 i.e. in assessment year 2010-11, when the collector rate o f the property in Sector 6, Panchkula was Rs.24

M/S CHANDIGARH BOTTLING CO.,CHANDIGARH vs. ACIT, CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Diva Singh & Dr.B.R.R.Kumar & Assessment Year: 2006-07

47 of the Income Tax Act,1961 (emphasis supplied) 5.3. Attention was also invited to unnumbered page 4 of the assessment order wherein the issue was summed up by the assessing officer in the following manner : Further, w.r.t. the assessee's contention . "Since none of the entries made are supported by any executed or registered instrument of transfer , the same

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 45" The complete details of the commercial properties sold during the F.Y. 2014-15 and eligible/allowable deduction u/s 54F is as under:- Particulars Property No. 1 Property No. Property No. 3, Bay Total Plot No. F- 2, Plot No. Shop No. 13-14, 264 Phase-8, 182/49, Indl. Sector 27-D, Mohali Area, Phase-1, Chd (17.5%) Chd Value

ITO, W-4(3), CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. RACHNA ARORA, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

47,76,073/-], whereas, as per provisions of section 54 of Income 8 A.Y.2015-16 Tax Act, 1961, the amount of allowable claim of exemption u/s 54 should be calculated with reference to amount of investment in newly acquired residential house property

SH. SUNIL KUMAR BATTA,PANCHKULALA vs. PR.CIT, PANCHKULA

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.47/Chd/2021 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year :2011-12

47-C-2021 (A.Y. 011-12) – Sunil Kumar Batta, Mohali 3 investment in another residential house- property at Panchkula for a sum of Rs.27,41,022/- and had claimed deduction under section

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

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 A.Y. 2008-09 Page 3 of 5 submitted that even on merits the facts are identical and the issue can be decided in favour of the assessee. 4. The ld. Sr.DR

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

section 54 since the assessee did not attend and comply with the show case notice issued by the AO on 26/12 for 28/12. 6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the assessing officer was incorrect and unjustified in rejecting the claim of the assessee for exemption of long term capital gain without providing

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

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Disposal Of Appeal.”

47. In this case, again an addition of Rs. 1,14,90,750/- was made basis deposit in the bank account of the assessee in terms of order passed under section 144 r.w.s 147 of the Act dt. 22/12/2017 which has since been confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) and against which, the assessee is in appeal before