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

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

House Property, Short term capital gain on sale of gold coin/s and on the sale of shares of ‘Spice Jet Ltd.’, Long

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

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

House Property, Short term capital gain on sale of gold coin/s and on the sale of shares of ‘Spice Jet Ltd.’, Long

DHEERUMAL SHARMA,MANDI vs. ITO, SUNDERNAGAR

In the result, both the above appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Ms. Annapurna Guptaassessment Year: 2008-09 Shri. Het Ram Sharma Vs. The Ito Vill & P.O. Tattapani Sundernagar Tehsil Karsog Mandi, H.P. Mandi, H.P.

house before the due date of filing of return of income. Further the AO noted that the other building acquired was a hotel /dhaba which was used for commercial purpose and hence was a business asset of the asessee and the capital gain earned from the sale thereof was Short Term Capital Gain (hereinafter referred to as” STCG”)within

HET RAM SHARMA,MANDI vs. ITO, , SUNDERNAGAR

In the result, both the above appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Ms. Annapurna Guptaassessment Year: 2008-09 Shri. Het Ram Sharma Vs. The Ito Vill & P.O. Tattapani Sundernagar Tehsil Karsog Mandi, H.P. Mandi, H.P.

house before the due date of filing of return of income. Further the AO noted that the other building acquired was a hotel /dhaba which was used for commercial purpose and hence was a business asset of the asessee and the capital gain earned from the sale thereof was Short Term Capital Gain (hereinafter referred to as” STCG”)within

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

Term Capital Gains from sale of shares, loss from house property and income from other sources. In this case, the Assessee filed his return of income declaring income at Rs. 89,59,650/- after claiming deduction of Rs. 1449-Chd-2019 Vinod Sharma, New Delhi 3 2,70,500/- under Chapter VIA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short

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-

property during the year under consideration. You are requested to please furnish your reply to the queries as stated above and show cause as to why the short term capital gain amounting to Rs.74,20,230/- may not be added to the taxable income of the assessee." (ii) In response thereto, the AR of the assessee has filed its reply

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

short ‘the Act’) and addition made on account of Long Term Capital Gains earned on sale of plots of land owned by the assessee amounting to Rs.3.65 crores. An appeal against the aforesaid assessment order was filed to the CIT(Appeals), challenging both the validity of assessment framed u/s 147 of the Act and also merits of the case

SMT. URMILA GARG,SANGRUR vs. ITO, WARD, SANGRUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee’s are allowed

Short Term Capital Gain & Long Term Capital Gain, but now it has been taken as exempt as per the Circular No. 36/2016 dt. 25/12/2016 issued by the CBDT. The assessee furnished a copy of the said Circular, original ITR and computation of income for the year under consideration as well as rectified computation of income also with proof of payment

SHRI SATISH KUMAR,SANGRUR vs. ITO, WARD, SANGRUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee’s are allowed

Short Term Capital Gain & Long Term Capital Gain, but now it has been taken as exempt as per the Circular No. 36/2016 dt. 25/12/2016 issued by the CBDT. The assessee furnished a copy of the said Circular, original ITR and computation of income for the year under consideration as well as rectified computation of income also with proof of payment

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

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

House No.1846, Ward-4(3), Sector 34-D, Chandigarh. Chandigarh. "थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: ALJPA7492G "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee by: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, CA राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue by : Shri Ashok Khanna, Addl.CIT सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing: 17.03.2021 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement: 31.03.2021 (Hearing through webex) आदेश/ORDER

HEM RAJ JAIN,LUDHIANA vs. ITO, W-1(1), LUDHIANA

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

Bench: I.T.A.T. & The Sole Issue Relates To The Computation Of Long Term Capital Gain Earned By The Assessee On Sale Of Property. Drawing Our Attention To The Facts Of The Case, As Reproduced At Para 3 Of The Cit(A)’S Order, It Was Pointed Out That The Assessment Had Been Framed On The Assessee For The Impugned Year U/S 143(3) Of The Act Making Addition On Account Of Long Term Capital

short ‘PNB’) with whom the original sale deed was kept by the purchaser who supplied the same copy of the sale deed as was submitted to the A.O. by the assessee. The A.O. also obtained copy of the sale deed directly through Suvidha Centre which was also the same. The A.O., however, again adopted the sale consideration of the property

UMESH KUMAR,MANDI vs. ITO, BILASPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Diva Singhassessment Year: 2008-09

property acquired consisted of first floor and second floor which was residential and hotel accommodation. Fifty percent of the building was treated as depreciable asset being used for hotel business and 50% as residential purposes. The AO treated the same as short term capital gain. The CIT(A) ITA 657/CHD/2017 A.Y. 2008-09 Page 4 of 5 has upheld

DUSHYANT,MANDI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Diva Singhassessment Year: 2008-09 Dushyant Vs. The Ito S/O Sh. Viptu Ram R/O Vpo Sunder Nagar Tata Pani Distt, Mandi Distt- Mandi, H.P. Pan No. Apfpd0262D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Inder Mohan Revenue By : Shri Manjit Singh

property acquired consisted of first floor and second floor which was residential and hotel accommodation. Fifty percent of the building was treated as depreciable asset being used for hotel business and 50% as residential purposes. The AO treated the same as short term capital gain. The CIT(A) has upheld the said decision. The said issue, it is seen

KESHAV DUTT SHREEDHAR,SHIMLA vs. DCIT, SHIMLA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

short term capital gain. Documents/ informations/details furnished by the assessee have been examined on test check basis and no adverse inference has been found. Case discussed with the counsel of the assessee and after discussions, income returned by the assessee is assessed at Rs. 16675690/-as declared.” (emphasis supplied) 2.4 Reading therefrom it was his submission that there

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

properties were sold for a total consideration of Rs. 2,96,25,000/- during the year. Net capital gain was worked out at Rs. 10,76,789/- after adjusting the short term capital loss, claiming cost of indexation and deduction u/s 54F amounting to Rs. 1,85,85,741/-. Further, a free hold residential house

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

short referred to as CIT(A)) u/s 250(6) of the Income Tax Act,1961,(hereinafter referred to as “Act’),dated 04-07-2019,relating to assessment Year(A.Y) 2015-16. 2. The grounds raised by the assessee read as under: 1. That on the facts, circumstances and legal position of the case, the Worthy CIT(A) in Appeal

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

short ‘the CIT (A)’] dated 28.08.2025 passed for assessment year 2013-14. 2. The assessee has taken three grounds of appeal out of which, ground No. 3 is general ground which does not call for recording of any specific finding. A.Y.2013-14 2 3. In Ground No.1, assessee has challenged re-opening of assessment whereas in ground No. 2, assessee

SH. SATPAL GOSAIN,LUDHIANA vs. ACIT, LUDHIANA

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

short referred to as ‘Act’), confirming the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 2. The facts of the case are that during the course of reassessment proceedings, the A.O. noticed that a housing society consisting of 95 present and ex MLAs of Punjab Legislative Assembly, was the owner of 21.02 acre land in village Kansal district