M/S Y.D. SOLUTIONS,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO, W-4(5), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

50,000/-. 17. The Ld.CIT(Appeals) has discussed the issue as under: “6.1 As discussed above the assessing officer has assessed the income from the rentals of property under the head income from house property and the annual value was taken as per the agreements with the tenants. Appellant ITA 852/CHD/2018 A.Y. 2014-15 Page 11 of 14 submitted that

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

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

house property, which is governed by the provisions of chapter IV-C of the Act. As per the charging section 22, the annual value of the property is charged to tax, which annual value has been defined u/s 23 of the Act. The remaining sections deal with deductions from the annual value and provisions relating to arrears of rent

M/S Y.D. SOLUTIONS,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO, CHANDIGARH

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Ms.Diva Singh & Ms. Annapurna Guptay.D. Solutions, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 2133, Sector 38-C, Ward 4(1), Chandigarh. Chandigarh. Pan: Aabfy0386N (Appellant) (Respondent)

50,000/-. 14 A.Y.2013-14 17. The Ld.CIT(Appeals) has discussed the issue as under: “6.1 As discussed above the assessing officer has assessed the income from the rentals of property under the head income from house property and the annual value was taken as per the agreements with the tenants. Appellant submitted that the value of the rental properties have

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

50,000 (including 10,15,000 renovation Deduction eligibility : Investment in residential property x capital gains/net consideration Here : 2,27,50.000x2.04,51,233/2,51,75,000 = 1,85,18,031 Capital gains of property 2&3 after deduction : 19,33,202 (2,04,51,233-1,85,18,031) Net capital gains after deducting loss of Property

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

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

property Act and Registration Act were not conclusive for interpretation of provisions of Income Tax Act? 17. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law Ld. CIT(A) is right in holding that the provisions of section 2(47)(ii) are not applicable when all the member of society surrendered their individual rights in the plots

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

property Act and Registration Act were not conclusive for interpretation of provisions of Income Tax Act? 17. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law Ld. CIT(A) is right in holding that the provisions of section 2(47)(ii) are not applicable when all the member of society surrendered their individual rights in the plots

S.SURJIT SINGH,LUDHIANA vs. PR.CIT-1, LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt.Diva Singh & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

Section 54, there are time limits wherein the assessee is required to purchase a new residential property within one year before or within two years after the date of transfer of the original residential house property or construct a new residential property within three years from the date of transfer of the original residential house property. The ld PCIT observed

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

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

HET RAM SHARMA,MANDI vs. ITO, , SUNDERNAGAR

In the result, both the above appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Ms. Annapurna Guptaassessment Year: 2008-09 Shri. Het Ram Sharma Vs. The Ito Vill & P.O. Tattapani Sundernagar Tehsil Karsog Mandi, H.P. Mandi, H.P.

property Year of construction : 1998-99 Cost as valued by LAO : Rs. 8,12,952/- Indexed cost : Rs. 812952 x 551/351 : Rs. 12,76,173/- Long term Capital Gain : Rs. 4,83,321/- No deduction u/s 54 was allowed as the assessee could not provide any proof of investment in purchase or construction of a new house before

DHEERUMAL SHARMA,MANDI vs. ITO, SUNDERNAGAR

In the result, both the above appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Ms. Annapurna Guptaassessment Year: 2008-09 Shri. Het Ram Sharma Vs. The Ito Vill & P.O. Tattapani Sundernagar Tehsil Karsog Mandi, H.P. Mandi, H.P.

property Year of construction : 1998-99 Cost as valued by LAO : Rs. 8,12,952/- Indexed cost : Rs. 812952 x 551/351 : Rs. 12,76,173/- Long term Capital Gain : Rs. 4,83,321/- No deduction u/s 54 was allowed as the assessee could not provide any proof of investment in purchase or construction of a new house before

SH. RAMINDER SINGH,MOHALI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(2), MOHALI

The appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Smt.Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1270/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16

house property u/s 54 = Rs. 96,50,000/- Long Term Capital Gain = Nil. “ That the AO took the value of the plots at Rs.2.50 crores,as per section

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

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Disposal Of Appeal.”

50,000/- was brought to tax under section 56. However property received for a consideration which is less than market value of property was also brought to tax subject to provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(c). However the property was defined in explanation below second proviso to section 56(2) (vii)(c ) as below: Property means the following capitals

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

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Disposal Of Appeal.”

50,000/- was brought to tax under section 56. However property received for a consideration which is less than market value of property was also brought to tax subject to provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(c). However the property was defined in explanation below second proviso to section 56(2) (vii)(c ) as below: Property means the following capitals

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

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Disposal Of Appeal.”

50,000/- was brought to tax under section 56. However property received for a consideration which is less than market value of property was also brought to tax subject to provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(c). However the property was defined in explanation below second proviso to section 56(2) (vii)(c ) as below: Property means the following capitals

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

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

50,000/-. The balance amount was contributed by her son in law. The proportionate share of assessee, her son in law & her daughter in the purchased property was 34%, 33%, 33% respectively. The AO was of opinion that since the share of assessee in new property was 34%, therefore she would be entitled for claim of exemption

KARNAIL SINGH vs. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CHANDIGARH

In the result, ground no. 9 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue

Bench: Us.

House property” and has claimed statutory deduction under section 24 of the Act. Further the assessee has claimed credit of TDS deducted by M/s Omaxe Ltd. @ 50