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 properties can be invested more than once for the same new property if cost of property is within capital gains that arose to the assessee. The contention of the A.O. that the assessee has invested in the said property in the previous year i.e. A.Y. 2012-13 and the assessee has also claimed benefit of deduction u/s 54F

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

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 to be disbursed by THDC through HASH to each individual member of the society, and different amounts and flats were payable

ACIT, INTL. TAXATION, CIRCLE, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. MANJIT SINGH BAIDWAN, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri R.L Negiआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1245/Chd/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 The Acit, Sh. Manjit Singh Baidwan, बनाम (International Taxation), # 3151, Sector 27-D, Chandigarh Chandigarh

section 54F for investments made outside India undisputedly can be denied as it can be said to be limited to the investment in residential house property

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH vs. DEEP KAUR PANNU THROUGH L/H RANJI SINGH PANNU & GURBILAS PLATO SINGH PANNU, CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 987/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Dcit, Deep Kaur Pannu, Circle 1(1), बनाम # 1070, Chandigarh Sector 15-B, Vs. Chandigarh "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Abmpk1575B अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent ( Physical Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Sh. Manoj Goyal, Ca राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Manav Bansal, Cit Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 22.05.2025 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 07.08.2025 आदेश/Order Per Krinwant Sahay, Am: Appeal In This Case Has Been Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 24.7.2024 Of Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi.

property was actually let out for rent to the tenant. 3. The Ld. CIT(A), in the facts and circumstances of case has erred in deleting the additions of Rs. 7,14,03,777/- and Rs. 56,000/- made by the Assessing Officer by denying deduction under section 54F of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and computing income from House

SHRI PRINCEPREETJIT SINGH,RANJIT NAGAR vs. PR.CIT-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

sections are identical—ensuring that where capital gains are reinvested in qualifying assets, the benefit of exemption should be granted, even if such reinvestment occurs before formal execution of the transfer deed. This interpretation has received judicial recognition in multiple cases, including:  DCIT v Assa Singh in ITA No. 26/Asr/2015 dated 11.3.2016, ITAT Amritsar.  Ramesh Narhari Jakhadi

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

property tax and claimed as deduction while calculating the capital gain on account of expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively in connection with transfer of the house under sold. v) Disallowing a sum of Rs.1,25,00,000 claimed as deduction on account of lawyer fees on the ground that the same was not entitled for deduction under section 48 while

SH. DALJIT SINGH BASSI,RANJIT NAGAR vs. PR.CIT-1, CHANDIGARH

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 56/Chd/2021 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16

house". Since the investment made in residential property u/s 54F is Rs. 6,41,94,000/-, which is less than the net consideration in respect of capital asset transferred, therefore, proportionate deduction in terms of provisions of Section

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 or get constructed a new house within time prescribed under the Act, then Assessing Officer has to revisit the same section and deny the capital gains, but during the period under consideration, the Assessee is very much entitled to make deposits of the sale proceedings in the capital gains account and claim deduction u/s 54F

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 50C of the Act,as against 1.14 crs shown by the assessee, on the basis of information called for u/s 133(6) of the Act from the Estate Officer GMADA, who submitted

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

house amounting to Rs. 28,75,000/- basis fresh valuation report, certificate of Mayor, copy of electricity bill as well as the bank certificate. However, as far as claim of deduction under section 54B of the Act was concerned, no findings has been recorded by the Ld. CIT(A) and as against LTCG of Rs. 41,37,368/- determined

SHRI VINOD SHARMA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE, SHIMLA

In the result, Assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1340/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Vinod Sharma, Acit, बनाम B-1/3, Safdarjang Enclave, Circle, New Delhi-110029. Shimla. Vs. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Abkps1560N अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent ( Hybrid Hearing) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri. Vishal Mohan, Sr. Advocate With Shri Abhinav, Advocate (Virtual Mode) राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. Cit, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 14-05-2025 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 Assessee Against The Order Dated 16-08-2019 Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Shimla H.P. [ Herein Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’]

property and thereby upholding the denial of deductions under Section 54F of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. The order of the CIT(A) is bad in law and facts. 3. The first ground of appeal is against the rejection of deduction claimed u/s 10(13)A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') in respect

AMARJIT SINGH MARWAHA ,SHIMLA vs. ITO, NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadavआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1379/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Shri Amarjit Singh Marwaha, The Ito, Cottage No.1, Sadhora, Vs Ward-1, Mashobra, Baldeyan, Shimla. Shimla. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aeepm0161N अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Vishal Mohan Sr.Advocate, With Shri Abhinav Bijwaria, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. Cit Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 21.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.01.2026

Section 144B of the Income Tax Act. The ld. AO has taken A.Y.2013-14 3 cognizance of the computation made by the assessee of alleged Long Term Capital Gain. The AO has observed that 50% share of the property falls in the hands of the assessee, thus, total sale consideration was Rs.38,75,000/-. He has given benefit of cost

SH. LALIT KUMAR BANSAL,MOHALI vs. PR. CIT-2, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shrir.L Negiआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.415/Chd/2018 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Sh Lalit Kumar Bansal, Pr. Cit-2, बनाम 1708, Phase 3B2, Chandigarh Mohali

house ITA No.415-Chd-2019- Shri Lalit Kumar Bansal, Mohali 2 property, profit and gains from business or profession and income from other sources. The return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. Since the case was selected for scrutiny, AO issued notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued. In response thereof, the authorized representative

SHRI DILRAJ SINGH DHALIWAL,CHANDIGARH vs. PR.CIT-1, CHANDIGARH

section 54F, it was submitted that the issue was raised by the AO and the assessee filed the copy of the purchase deed of residential house no. 7, Sector 3A, Chandigarh vide submission dt. 05/9/2017 and 14/09/2017 and which has been duly examined by the AO and no adverse findings has been recorded by him. 3.4 It was accordingly submitted

SH. MANJIT SINGH BAIDWAN,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, INTL. TAXATION, CIRCLE, CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Krinwant Sahay

Section 54 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 brought vide Finance (No. 2) Act, 2014 w.e.f. 01.04.2015, there was no such condition of purchasing of the new house in India only to claim deduction u/s 54 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In respect of the issue of purchase of new residential house in joint name with wife

SH. GURDEEP SINGH,SIRMOUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHANDIGARH-1

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Appeal Is Finally Disposed Off.

property and it was held that it is a matter of opinion and hence, no question of law arose. The extract reproduced in page 11 para 9 of the impugned order, it was submitted, is an extract of the obiter wherein the Hon'ble Court made observations in passing. The said decision, it was argued in no way lends