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

Section 148 to re-assess the time barring assessment. 4. That the Learned CIT(A) has wrongly upheld issue of notice u/s 148 merely on change of opinion. 5. That the Learned CIT(A) has wrongly set aside the issue of disallowance of long term capital gain of Rs. 3,65,71,210/-. 6. That the Learned

SANJEEV KUMAR GOYAL,FATEHABAD vs. DCIT, CC-2, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is allowed

Bench: This Hon’Ble Tribunal Under Section 253 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 As Amended From Time To Time. 2. The Assessee Is Aggrieved By The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Dt. 20/01/2023 In Appeal No. 10853/2018-19/It/Cit(A)-5/Ldh/2021-22 For The A.Y. 2019-20 Under Section 250(6) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Which Was Dismissed. Therefore The Present Second Appeal Under Section 253 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Before Us Against The Aforesaid Order Dt. 20/01/2023 Which Is Hereinafter Referred To As The Impugned Order.

house property and loss from other sources are Rs.8,73,382/-. In the profit & loss account, the assessee has shown income of Rs.45,00,000/- with narration Income from Business on A/c of shortage of cash and building exp. As surrender u/s 133A on the credit side of Profit & loss Account. iii) That the return of income was accompanied with

RAJNI JAIN,BATHINDA vs. PR.CIT(CENTRAL), LUDHIANA

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

71 to 73 of the Paper Book there were two more issues i.e. one with regard to unsecured loan raised from Swagat Trading and the other on account of ‘Income from House Property’. It was submitted that, the Ld. PCIT has not given any adverse ITA Nos. 140 to 143-Chd-2021 Sh. Sanjay Jain and Others, Ludhiana 16 finding

SHRI SANJAY JAIN,BATHINDA vs. PR.CIT(CENTRAL), LUDHIANA

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

71 to 73 of the Paper Book there were two more issues i.e. one with regard to unsecured loan raised from Swagat Trading and the other on account of ‘Income from House Property’. It was submitted that, the Ld. PCIT has not given any adverse ITA Nos. 140 to 143-Chd-2021 Sh. Sanjay Jain and Others, Ludhiana 16 finding

TARUN JAIN,BATHINDA vs. PR.CIT(CENTRAL), LUDHIANA

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

71 to 73 of the Paper Book there were two more issues i.e. one with regard to unsecured loan raised from Swagat Trading and the other on account of ‘Income from House Property’. It was submitted that, the Ld. PCIT has not given any adverse ITA Nos. 140 to 143-Chd-2021 Sh. Sanjay Jain and Others, Ludhiana 16 finding

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

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Disposal Of Appeal.”

71 lacs notwithstanding the fact that the purchaser in cross- examination retracted from his earlier statement. In the case of Basheer Ahamed vs. CIT-II (2013) 84 CCH 179 Chen HC : (2013) 352 ITR 157 (Mad), the assessee had sold his property under sale deed and obtained sale consideration from purchasers. Pursuant to survey in premises of purchasers, copy

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

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Disposal Of Appeal.”

71 lacs notwithstanding the fact that the purchaser in cross- examination retracted from his earlier statement. In the case of Basheer Ahamed vs. CIT-II (2013) 84 CCH 179 Chen HC : (2013) 352 ITR 157 (Mad), the assessee had sold his property under sale deed and obtained sale consideration from purchasers. Pursuant to survey in premises of purchasers, copy

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

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Disposal Of Appeal.”

71 lacs notwithstanding the fact that the purchaser in cross- examination retracted from his earlier statement. In the case of Basheer Ahamed vs. CIT-II (2013) 84 CCH 179 Chen HC : (2013) 352 ITR 157 (Mad), the assessee had sold his property under sale deed and obtained sale consideration from purchasers. Pursuant to survey in premises of purchasers, copy

DCIT, CIRCLE, PATIALA vs. M/S PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LTD., PATIALA

In the result, ground no. 1 & 3 of the Revenue’s appeal is allowed and ground no

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

71 TTJ (Delhi) 841] and Shah Originals Vs. ACIT [(2007) 112 TTJ (Mum.) 754]. He also relied on the judgments in CIT Vs. Travancore Tea & Estate Limited [(1994) 207 ITR 242 (Ker.)] and Smt. B. Seshamma VS. CIT (1979) 119 ITR 314 (Mad) holding that the interest on income-tax refund was liable to be assessed as `Income from other

M/S CHANDIGARH LAWN TENNIS ASSOCIATION,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO (EXEMPTIONS), CHANDIGARH

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptaassessment Year : 2013-14 Chandigarh Lawn Tennis Vs. The Ito (Exemptions), Association, Ward, Chandigarh Sector 10, Chandigarh Pan No. Aaatc4943J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sh. Y.K. Sud, Ca Respondent By : Smt. Chanderkanta, Addl. Cit (On 22.3.2018) & Sh.Yoginder Mittal, Sr. Dr (On 13.7.2018) Date Of Hearing : 22.03.2018 & 13.7.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.07.2018

section 2(15) there is a paradigm shift from the earlier position. Though, some of the decisions of the Delhi High Court as referred to above and that of the Pb. & Hry. High Court in the case of The Tribune Trust (supra) have been delivered subsequent to the introduction of the second proviso to section

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

71,90,800/- on account of disallowance of the exemption / deduction claimed by the assessee u/s 54 of the Act and addition of Rs. 21,478/- i.e., on account of difference of actual amount of interest received by the assessee and the amount declared by the assessee. The assessee challenged the action of the AO in making addition of Rs.4

SH. KRISHAN KUMAR,KHANNA vs. DCIT, CC-1, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

71,190/-. However, the Assessing Officer without appreciating the facts and reply submitted from time to time by invoking the provisions of section 69 of the Act treated the same as unexplained investments in the hands of the Assessee, which on appeal, was upheld by the ld. CIT(A). It is important to refer the provisions of section 69 which

DCIT, C-,1 (E), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S PUNJAB MEDICAL FOUNDATION CHARITABLE TRUST, JALANDHAR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: S/Shri N.K. Saini, Vice- & Rajpal Yadav, Vice-"नधा"रण वष"/ Asstt.Year: 2014-15 Dcit, Cir.1(Exemption) M/S.Punjab Medical Foundation Chandigarh. Vs. Charitable Trust 63-64, Waryam Nagar Cool Road, Jalandhar Pan : Aaatp 5171 B (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri Sudhir Sehal, Advocate Assessee By Revenue By : Shri Ashok K. Khana, Addl.Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 18/11/2020 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/12/2020 आदेश/O R D E R

71,38,15 7 158.97% 86,24,216 5.2% 2013-14 22,24,44,203 20,23,32,884 1,

SHEELA GOYAL,CHANDIGARH vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 690/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Sheela Goyal, The Pcit, 3180, Sector 28-D, बनाम Chandigarh Chandigarh Vs. "थायी लेखा सं./ Pan No: Aaypg0407H अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent ( Hybrid Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Sh. Manoj Kumar, Ca राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Sh. Rajat Kumar Kureel, Cit Dr (Virtual Mode) सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 15.01.2026 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 12.03.2026

section 263 by the PCIT. 6. During proceedings before us, the ld. Counsel for the Assessee brought it on record that in the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer dated 31.3.2023, it has been clearly mentioned as under: - “2.1 In response the assessee furnished the relevant details and documents related to the source of investment made

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD), LUDHIANA vs. M/S SHEETAL INDUSTRIES , KHANNA

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahay

house property’, (iii) ‘profits and gains from business or profession’, (iv) ‘capital gains’ and (v) ‘income from other sources’ – cannot at all be adjusted against unexplained investment or expenditure. What is necessary as per Hon. Gujarat High Court is that source of acquisition of asset or expenditure should be clearly identifiable. In the case before Hon. Gujarat High Court

RAV SHARAN SINGH,PATIALA vs. ACIT, C.C., PATIALA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

house property’, (iii) ‘profits and gains from business or profession’, (iv) ‘capital gains’ and (v) ‘income from other sources’ – cannot at all be adjusted against unexplained investment or expenditure. What is necessary as per Hon. Gujarat High Court is that source of acquisition of asset or expenditure should be clearly identifiable. In the case before Hon. Gujarat High Court

M/S JASHAN FINLEASE LTD.,KHANNA vs. DCIT, CC-1, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

house property’, (iii) ‘profits and gains from business or profession’, (iv) ‘capital gains’ and (v) ‘income from other sources’ – cannot at all be adjusted against unexplained investment or expenditure. What is necessary as per Hon. Gujarat High Court is that source of acquisition of asset or expenditure should be clearly identifiable. In the case before Hon. Gujarat High Court

MRS. KIRAN BALA,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-III, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

house property’, (iii) ‘profits and gains from business or profession’, (iv) ‘capital gains’ and (v) ‘income from other sources’ – cannot at all be adjusted against unexplained investment or expenditure. What is necessary as per Hon. Gujarat High Court is that source of acquisition of asset or expenditure should be clearly identifiable. In the case before Hon. Gujarat High Court