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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

House Property’, the annual value of the properties has been taken as per section 23 of the Act on the basis of agreements with the tenants. The same is upheld and the ground of appeal No.3 is dismissed.” 18. The Ld. counsel for assessee has not pointed out any infirmity in the above order of the Ld.CIT(Appeals). We, therefore

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

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

section 22, the annual value of any property shall be deemed to be— (a) the sum for which the property might reasonably be expected to let from year to year: or…… 27.2.1 Thus, aforesaid provisions show how the annual let out value (ALV) is to be determined i.e. the sum for which value of any property might reasonably be expected

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 Ltd. on 29.08.2007 and M/s Uppal Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. on 30.11.2008 would not constitute transfer of any capital asset which would result in earning of Long Term Capital Gain upon whom tax liability is to be discharged by the assessee/land owners. For buttressing this proposition, he took us through the alleged Collaboration Agreements as well as the following judgements

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 property” shown by the assessee in its return of income. The assessee had furnished copy of notice issued u/s 142(1), dated 25.11.2020 and notice dated 10.12.2020, notice dated 27.01.2021 and notice dated 05.02.2021 and reply dated 10.02.2021 pages 6 to 19 respectively. It was stated that the assessee had returned rental income from the three properties, amounting

SH. RAJINDER SINGH BEDI,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT (INTL. TAXATION), CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 538/Chd/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Rajinder Singh Bedi, The Dcit, (Int.Taxation ), 1368, Sector 40-B, Vs Chandigarh. Chandigarh. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Afwpb3355A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate Revenue By : Smt. Kusum Bansal, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 09.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 04.06.2025 Hybrid Hearing O R D E R

house bearing No. 845 Sector 38-A, Chandigarh was originally allotted to Smt. Joginder Kaur on 03.04.1987. The assessee got 100% share of this property from his mother on 24.06.2010. He has sold the property for a total consideration of Rs.3,88,00,000/- during the accounting year relevant to assessment year 2018-19. Thus, the dispute relates to correct

KANDHARI INFRASTRUCTURES PRIVATE LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1),CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: The Appeal Is Finally Heard Or Disposed Off. 4. That The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Is Erroneous, Arbitrary, Opposed To The Facts Of The Case & Thus Untenable.”

section 24B amounting to Rs. 56,52,053/- determined income from House Property at Rs. 40,73,316/- and the net income, after the set off of other house property income under the head income from House Property, was determined at Rs. 39,23,316/-. 4. Being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before

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. 7. We also submit that your honour has again placed reliance on gift deed dated 8/10/2009. 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 as minimum value onwhich buyer / seller has to pay stamp

JANTA LAND PROMOTERS PRIVATE LIMITED ,MOHALI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 6(1) CHANDIGARH , MOHALI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 907/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 बनाम M/S Janta Land Promoters Pvt.Ltd. The Ito, Sco 39-42, Sector 82, Ward 6(1), Vs Mohali. Chandigarh. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan /Tan No: Aabcj3450D अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Pankaj Bhalla, Ca राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. Cit, Sr.Dr तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 07.05.2025 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30.07.2025

section 22 and 23 of the Income Tax Act were applied in the case of assessee company relying upon the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Ansal Housing and Construction reported in [20167 72taxmann.com 254. The CIT(A) confirmed the said addition by relying upon

KARNAIL SINGH,UK vs. JCIT (OSD) INTL. TAXATION, CIRCLE, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stands allowed

house property”. Thereafter, the AO analyze the provisions of Article 12 of Indo-UK DTAA as well as definition of interest as per Section 2(28A) of the Act and has held that the money paid by the assessee to M/s Omaxe Ltd. is a capital investment for purchase of the property, the assessee will get back the capital asset

KARNAIL SINGH,UK vs. JCIT (OSD) INTL. TAXATION, CIRCLE, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stands allowed

house property”. Thereafter, the AO analyze the provisions of Article 12 of Indo-UK DTAA as well as definition of interest as per Section 2(28A) of the Act and has held that the money paid by the assessee to M/s Omaxe Ltd. is a capital investment for purchase of the property, the assessee will get back the capital asset

KARNAIL SINGH,UK vs. JCIT (OSD) INTL. TAXATION, CIRCLE, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stands allowed

house property”. Thereafter, the AO analyze the provisions of Article 12 of Indo-UK DTAA as well as definition of interest as per Section 2(28A) of the Act and has held that the money paid by the assessee to M/s Omaxe Ltd. is a capital investment for purchase of the property, the assessee will get back the capital asset

KARNAIL SINGH,UK vs. JCIT (OSD) INTL. TAXATION, CIRCLE, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stands allowed

house property”. Thereafter, the AO analyze the provisions of Article 12 of Indo-UK DTAA as well as definition of interest as per Section 2(28A) of the Act and has held that the money paid by the assessee to M/s Omaxe Ltd. is a capital investment for purchase of the property, the assessee will get back the capital asset

KARNAIL SINGH,UK vs. JCIT (OSD) INTL. TAXATION, CIRCLE, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stands allowed

house property”. Thereafter, the AO analyze the provisions of Article 12 of Indo-UK DTAA as well as definition of interest as per Section 2(28A) of the Act and has held that the money paid by the assessee to M/s Omaxe Ltd. is a capital investment for purchase of the property, the assessee will get back the capital asset

KARNAIL SINGH,UK vs. JCIT (OSD) INTL. TAXATION, CIRCLE, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stands allowed

house property”. Thereafter, the AO analyze the provisions of Article 12 of Indo-UK DTAA as well as definition of interest as per Section 2(28A) of the Act and has held that the money paid by the assessee to M/s Omaxe Ltd. is a capital investment for purchase of the property, the assessee will get back the capital asset

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

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

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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 and not the amount of capital gain on sale of existing house property. Since, the relief has been accorded, this gain on sale of existing house property

NOOR RESORTS PRIVATE LIMITED,KULLU vs. PR.CIT, SHIMLA

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

7,70,160.40 instead of Rs. 3,89,226/- if the rental income was to be considered as “income from House Property”, instead of “business income”, as declared by the assessee. 8.11 We therefore by considering the totality of the facts as discussed herein above are of the view that the assessment order passed by the A.O. was not prejudicial

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 263 of the Act is beyond his competence. 2. That the Ld. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax has failed to consider that the case of the assessee was picked up for limited scrutiny and the issues in that regard including sale/purchase of property, indexed cost, etc. were thoroughly looked into and as such the assessment order passed was neither