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 in favour of Tata Housing Development Company Limited (THDC) and so 'transfer' for the purposes of section 2(47)(v) of the Income Tax Act 1961 read with Section 2(47)(ii), 2(47)((vi) Explanation below Section 2(47) and Section 269UA had taken place7 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case

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 in favour of Tata Housing Development Company Limited (THDC) and so 'transfer' for the purposes of section 2(47)(v) of the Income Tax Act 1961 read with Section 2(47)(ii), 2(47)((vi) Explanation below Section 2(47) and Section 269UA had taken place? 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case

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 Tax Act 1961 read with Section 2(47)(ii), 2(47)(vi), and explanation below 2(47) and Section 269UA had taken place. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

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

53A of TP Act reached to the conclusion that the year of chargeability of capital gains is the year in which the contract is executed. 6.12 Further, a reference is made to the observations of Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ganga Properties Ltd. 77ITR 637 which is reproduced as under :- "Now, section

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

53A of TP Act reached to the conclusion that the year of chargeability of capital gains is the year in which the contract is executed. 6.12 Further, a reference is made to the observations of Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ganga Properties Ltd. 77ITR 637 which is reproduced as under :- "Now, section

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

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

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)(v) of the Income Tax Act 1961 read with Section 2(47)(ii), 2(47)(vi), and explanation below 2(47) and Section 2691)A had taken place. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

ROPAR DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE UNION LIMITED,MOHALI vs. PCIT, CHANDIGAR-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: SHRI AAKASH DEEPJAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

house building scheme of the society, company or association, as the case may be, shall be deemed to be the owner of that building or part thereof; (a) a person who is allowed to take or retain possession of any building or part thereof in part performance of a contract of the nature referred to in section 53A

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

53A of the Transfer of Property Act envisages situations where under a contract for transfer of an immovable property, the purchaser has paid the price and has taken possession of the property, but the conveyance is either not executed or if executed it is not registered. In such cases the transferor is debarred from agitating his title to the property

SH. PARMINDER SINGH MAVI,MORINDA vs. ITO, ROPAR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Housing Development Company Ltd. for which consideration had been settled in the form of cash as well as kind. He, therefore, held that the provisions of section 2(47)(v) of the Act r.w.s. A.Y.2008-09 53A of the transfer of Property

DCIT, CC 1, CHANDIGARH , CHANDIGARH vs. SANJEEV AGGARWAL , CHANDIGARH

The appeals of the revenue are treated as dismissed

properties was without any\nincriminating materials found during search [oral or documentary which could have\nsuggested that the assessee has shown less investment in its books for building\nconstruction] Therefore, no addition was permissible in the assessment order u/s 153A\nof the Act in the case of un-abated assessments unless it is based on relevant\n56\nincriminating material found

SCOTT EDIL ADVANCE RESEARCH LABORATORIES AND EDUCATION LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH

properties, then the valuation arrived at by the DVO would be of no\nconsequence. Accordingly, in view of the above cited judicial precedents as well as the\nfactual finding recorded by the Ld. CIT(A) in assessment year 2016-17, which, in our\nopinion, is both sound as well as logical, we have no hesitation in upholding the same.\nAccordingly

SHRI BALRAM KRISHAN,CHANDIGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

property solely on\nthe basis of DVO report without any other corroborating evidence or incriminating\nevidence found in support of such addition. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sargam\n...\n...\n...\n...\n53\nCinema v. CIT (328 ITR 513) has held that a DVO’s report cannot be relied upon unless\nthe books of accounts are found

SHRI BALRAM KRISHAN,CHANDIGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

properties, then the valuation arrived at by the DVO would be of no\nconsequence. Accordingly, in view of the above cited judicial precedents as well as the\nfactual finding recorded by the Ld. CIT(A) in assessment year 2016-17, which, in our\nopinion, is both sound as well as logical, we have no hesitation in upholding the same.\nAccordingly

SCOTT EDIL ADVANCE RESEARCH LABORATORIES AND EDUCATION LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH

properties, then the valuation arrived at by the DVO would be of no\nconsequence. Accordingly, in view of the above cited judicial precedents as well as the\nfactual finding recorded by the Ld. CIT(A) in assessment year 2016-17, which, in our\nopinion, is both sound as well as logical, we have no hesitation in upholding the same.\nAccordingly