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

83,36,650/- u/s 54B & 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

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

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

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

House Property while passing the order u/s 263. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee gave a detailed response to the show cause notice demonstrating that the AO had conducted adequate enquiries on the issue of Long Term Capital Gain, exemption u/s 10(36) of the Act, deduction u/s 57 of the Act as well as on unsecured loans

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

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

House Property while passing the order u/s 263. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee gave a detailed response to the show cause notice demonstrating that the AO had conducted adequate enquiries on the issue of Long Term Capital Gain, exemption u/s 10(36) of the Act, deduction u/s 57 of the Act as well as on unsecured loans

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

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

House Property while passing the order u/s 263. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee gave a detailed response to the show cause notice demonstrating that the AO had conducted adequate enquiries on the issue of Long Term Capital Gain, exemption u/s 10(36) of the Act, deduction u/s 57 of the Act as well as on unsecured loans

SH. SUNIL KUMAR BATTA,PANCHKULALA vs. PR.CIT, PANCHKULA

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.47/Chd/2021 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year :2011-12

house- property at Panchkula for a sum of Rs.27,41,022/- and had claimed deduction under section 54 of the Act in respect thereof. On perusal of the computation chart, the AO noticed that the assessee had claimed Rs.12,17,106/- towards cost of improvement of the property sold during the financial year 2000-01 and Rs.9

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)

83 ITR 700 (SC) held that such income was taxable under the head `Income from house property' and not `business income'. Thus it can be seen that once the conditions of section

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

KAKA SINGH ALIAS GULJAR SINGH,PATIALA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , PATIALA

section 57.\nThe said provision reads thus:\n\"57. Deductions.-The income chargeable under the head 'Income from other\nsources' shall be computed after making the following deductions, namely :.\n(iv) in the case of income of the nature referred to in clause (viii) of sub-\nsection (2) of section 56, a deduction of a sum equal to fifty

M/S S.S.WAREHOUSING,LUDHIANA vs. ITO WARD, SIRHIND

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

83,239/- by treating the income on account of rent received as Income from House property instead of the business income as declared by the assessee firm in its ITR. Furthermore, the worthy CIT(A) has also erred in disallowing the deduction as claimed under section

NARENDER KAUR,KURUKSHETRA, HARYANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1 , KURUKSHETRA

section 56, a deduction of a sum equal to fifty per cent. of such\nincome and no deduction shall be allowed under any other clause of this\nsection.\"\n21. The Assessing Officer in I. T. A. No. 132 of 2018 where the assessee had\nreceived Rs.11,30,561 as interest income, held that the interest payment\nreceived on compensation/enhanced compensation

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

property was a subject matter for consideration in assessment year 2016-17 and this fact is also evident from para 11 of the impugned order, wherein, the Ld. PCIT has mentioned the dates between June and August 2017. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the Assessing officer had, in fact, made proper inquiry before accepting the assessee

TARLOCHAN SINGH ,BHAWANIGARH vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, PATIALA

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

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

83,87,752/- and there was a difference of Rs 17,07,029/- in the stock which was found by the survey team. We therefore find that the stock physically found has been valued and then, compared with the value of stock so recorded in the books of accounts and the difference in the value of the stock so found

SHRI HARI & CO OWNERS,KAITHAL vs. PR. CIT, CHANDIGARH -1, ROHTAK

In the result, both the above appeals of the Assessee are dismissed

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

housing i.e. storage of agriculture produces. The assessee had not filed his original income tax return for A.Y. 2012-13. During assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) of A.Y.2013-14, the AO had referred the case to Departmental Valuation officer, Chandigarh to determine the cost of investment made in construction of Building/structure vide letter dated 21.03.2016. In response, Departmental Valuation Officer

SHRI HARI & CO OWNERS,KAITHAL vs. PR. CIT, CHANDIGARH -1, ROHTAK

In the result, both the above appeals of the Assessee are dismissed

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

housing i.e. storage of agriculture produces. The assessee had not filed his original income tax return for A.Y. 2012-13. During assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) of A.Y.2013-14, the AO had referred the case to Departmental Valuation officer, Chandigarh to determine the cost of investment made in construction of Building/structure vide letter dated 21.03.2016. In response, Departmental Valuation Officer

M/S SATWANT AGRO ENGINEERS,BHAWANIGARH vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, PATIALA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

house property, profits and gains of business or profession, or capital gains, nor is it income from "other sources" because the provisions of sections 69,69A, 69B and 69C treat unexplained investment, unexplained money, bullion, etc., and unexplained expenditure as deemed income where the nature and source of investment, acquisition or expenditure, as the case may be, have not been

SH. SHAMSHER SINGH,PATIALA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeals of the assessees stand allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 381 & 382/Chd/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2011-12 Shamsher Singh, Vs. The Acit बनाम Central Circle-2, 11-A, Gen Chanda Singh Chandigarh Colony, Patiala 147001 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Ahjps3586P अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 383 & 384/Chd/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2011-12 Vs. The Acit Saranjit Singh, बनाम Centralcircle-2, 11-A, Gen Chanda Chandigarh Singh Colony, Patiala 147001 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Amwps9575J अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent ( Hybrid Hearing )

House No.762, Sector 8B, Chandigarh relevant to A.Y 2011-12 was found, which amount was less than the prescribed limit of Rs.50,00,000/- as provided under 4th Proviso to section 153A(1) of the Act. He has contended that no other incriminating document or evidence was available to the A.O showing the escapement of income for the ‘relevant assessment

SH. SARANJIT SINGH,PATIALA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE -2, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeals of the assessees stand allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 381 & 382/Chd/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2011-12 Shamsher Singh, Vs. The Acit बनाम Central Circle-2, 11-A, Gen Chanda Singh Chandigarh Colony, Patiala 147001 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Ahjps3586P अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 383 & 384/Chd/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2011-12 Vs. The Acit Saranjit Singh, बनाम Centralcircle-2, 11-A, Gen Chanda Chandigarh Singh Colony, Patiala 147001 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Amwps9575J अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent ( Hybrid Hearing )

House No.762, Sector 8B, Chandigarh relevant to A.Y 2011-12 was found, which amount was less than the prescribed limit of Rs.50,00,000/- as provided under 4th Proviso to section 153A(1) of the Act. He has contended that no other incriminating document or evidence was available to the A.O showing the escapement of income for the ‘relevant assessment