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

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

SH. JASWINDER SINGH LOTA,MOHALI vs. DY. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Diva Singh & Shri B.R.R.Kumarassessment Year: 2008-09

house property in order to get the benefit of deductions 54F provided other conditions were fulfilled. Thus, since the assessment year under consideration is prior to the amendment of section 54F by the Finance Act, 2014 the law as on date stands that the claim of the assessee has to be allowed. Accordingly, the issue is restored back

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, 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

54F on the capital gains which were invested on 04.04.2014. The whole dispute revolves around whether the transactions entered into by the appellant is "purchase of house" or "construction of a house". To decide the issue at hand, it is pertinent to take note of the documentary evidence on record. The offer letter issued by Jaypee Greens and the amount

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

54F invested subsequent to the receipt of money against sale of agriculture land. 3. That learned CIT (Appeals) has erred in law and facts in adopting indexed cost of land valued on the basis of land value on 1-4-1981 at Rs. 3,58,321/-. 4. That learned CIT (Appeals) has erred in law and facts in confirming

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

54F invested subsequent to the receipt of money against sale of agriculture land. 3. That learned CIT (Appeals) has erred in law and facts in adopting indexed cost of land valued on the basis of land value on 1-4-1981 at Rs. 3,58,321/-. 4. That learned CIT (Appeals) has erred in law and facts in confirming

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

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

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

KESHAV DUTT SHREEDHAR,SHIMLA vs. DCIT, SHIMLA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

house and not invest the “same money”. It was his submission that the capital gains earned by the assessee can be utilised for other purposes as long as the assessee fulfils the conditions by investing the equivalent amount in the asset qualifying for relief under section 54F. The law, it was argued, does not ITA 8 /CHD/2016

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)

1,35,08,500/- towards purchase of agricultural lands and this investment is before execution of sale deed on 14.08.2014. The Ld. PCIT failed to appreciate that it was a composite deal for entire land, the buyer had given advance for entire composite deal, the 2 sale deeds one in Aug 2014 and other in Feb 2016 are to same

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

54F of the Income Tax Act. 4. Brief facts of the case are that a Housing Society, named as The Defence Services Co-operative House Building Society Ltd., Mohali (hereinafter referred to as 'Society') consisting of 207 members was formed, which was the owner of 27.3 acres of land in Village Kansal, District Mohali. This Society entered into a tripartite

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 54F of the IT Act, 1961 was to be allowed as per calculation given as under:- Long Term capital Gain * amount reinvested

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.

section 54F by ignoring the fact that fractional ownership right in one residential property cannot be equated to ownership of one residential house for the purpose of deduction u/s 54F of the Act. 7.2.1 Since ground No.1 has been allowed in favour of the appellant on merits, the alternate grounds raised by the appellant have become redundant and are therefore

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

house property in order to get the benefit of deductions 54F provided other conditions were fulfilled. Thus, since the assessment year under consideration is prior to the amendment of section 54F by the Finance Act, 2014 the law as on date stands that the claim of the assessee has to be ITA No.1245-Chd-2018- Sh. Manjit Singh Baidwan, Chandigarh 5 allowed

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

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 Act and Registration Act were not conclusive for interpretation of provisions of Income Tax Act. 9. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding that the provisions of section 2(47)(ii) are not applicable whereas all the members of society surrendered their individual rights

SH. SIMERDEEP GREWAL,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, C-7, LUDHIANA

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg

54F of the Act, what is required is the purchase of the new house either one year prior to ITA No. 902-Chd-2018- Sh. Simrandeep Grewal, Ludhiana 4 date of sale of residential property or two years after the date of sale of the residential property. Admittedly, the assessee had purchased the house within two years from the date