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

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

House property” and has claimed statutory deduction under section 24 of the Act. Further the assessee has claimed credit of TDS

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

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

House property” and has claimed statutory deduction under section 24 of the Act. Further the assessee has claimed credit of TDS

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

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

House property” and has claimed statutory deduction under section 24 of the Act. Further the assessee has claimed credit of TDS

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

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

House property” and has claimed statutory deduction under section 24 of the Act. Further the assessee has claimed credit of TDS

GURPARTAP SINGH KAIRON,CHANDIGARH, INDIA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE, WARD-2(1), , CHANDIGARH, INDIA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Appeal Is Finally Heard & Disposed Off.”

house property of the appellant. In the ITR filed the appellant claimed credit for TDS as per 26AS of Rs 295013/- with

KARNAIL SINGH vs. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CHANDIGARH

In the result, ground no. 9 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue

Bench: Us.

House property” and has claimed statutory deduction under section 24 of the Act. Further the assessee has claimed credit of TDS

KARNAIL SINGH vs. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CHANDIGARH

In the result, ground no. 9 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue

Bench: Us.

House property” and has claimed statutory deduction under section 24 of the Act. Further the assessee has claimed credit of TDS

KARNAIL SINGH vs. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CHANDIGARH

In the result, ground no. 9 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue

Bench: Us.

House property” and has claimed statutory deduction under section 24 of the Act. Further the assessee has claimed credit of TDS

KARNAIL SINGH vs. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CHANDIGARH

In the result, ground no. 9 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue

Bench: Us.

House property” and has claimed statutory deduction under section 24 of the Act. Further the assessee has claimed credit of TDS

KARNAIL SINGH vs. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CHANDIGARH

In the result, ground no. 9 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue

Bench: Us.

House property” and has claimed statutory deduction under section 24 of the Act. Further the assessee has claimed credit of TDS

KARNAIL SINGH vs. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CHANDIGARH

In the result, ground no. 9 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue

Bench: Us.

House property” and has claimed statutory deduction under section 24 of the Act. Further the assessee has claimed credit of TDS

SANJEEV KUMAR GOYAL,LUDHIANA vs. ACIT, CC-2, LUDHIANA

In the result, all these three appeals are hereby allowed

Bench: The Disposal Of The Present Appeal.

house property as stated by you and the interest paid on loan against property is clearly eligible for deduction u/s 57 of the Act. In funds received by the assessee out of the loan against property was also utilized for giving unsecured loans. 4. That in most of the'cases interest to be paid on unsecured loans has been credited

SH. GULSHAN KUMAR PROP. G.K. RESORTS,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT CIRCLE-2, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt.Diva Singh & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavsh. Gulshan Kumar बनाम Deputy Commissioner Of Prop. G. K. Resorts House No. 3, Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Agar Nagar Extension, Ferospur Ludhiana Road, Ludhiana 1410212, Punjab "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aaqpk1200Q

house property”, “income from business/profession” and “income from other sources”. The case of the assessee was selected under CASS on account of large cash deposits made during the demonetization period for complete scrutiny, thereafter notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) were issued calling for the information/documentation. Further, during the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee was also issued

NEELAM HOSPITAL,RAJPURA vs. DCIT, MANDI GOBINDGARH

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed for

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 369/Chd/2021 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19

TDS)-2, बनाम C/o V.Gupta & Associates, Chandigarh Chartered Accountants, D-14, Calibre Market, Rajpura "थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AALFN0241M अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Hearing though video Conferencing "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee by : Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal, CA राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue by : Dr. Ranjeet Kaur, CIT DR सुनवाई क" तार$ख/Date of Hearing : 21.03.2022 उदघोषणा

AMARDEEP SANDHU,CHANDIGARH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 92/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2023-24 Shri Amardeep Sandhu, Vs The Ito, Jagjit Singh Anil Batra, Chandigarh. Sco 45, 2Nd Floor, Sector 41D, Chandigarh. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Cheps4310N अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Anil Batra, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. Ld. Cit Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 29.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 01.09.2025 Physical Hearing

property i.e House No 1602, Sector 36 D, Chandigarh for a consideration of Rs. 4,65,00,000/- on which Rs. 1,20,90,000/- tax was deducted at source @26%. Para 2. Accordingly Income Tax Return was filed vide Acknowledgment no 559929440191223 dated 19-12-2023 declaring net taxable income inclusive of Long Term capital gain

VIMAL GROVER,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO WARD 5, YAMUNANAGR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 957/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 बनाम Shri Vimal Grover, The Ito, 1473, Basement & Ground Floor, Ward 5, Vs Sector 40-B, Chandigarh. Yamuna Nagar. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan /Tan No: Aaypg3728P अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Ajay Jain, Ca राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 18.03.2026 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 15.04.2026 Hybrid Hearing

house loan or be it a property purchased for office use, the interest expenditure deserves to be allowed to the assessee. If AO is of the view that it cannot be allowed as a business expenditure, then alternate claim of the assessee for allowing of interest u/s 24 of the Act ought to have considered by the AO. Accordingly

INCOME TAX OFFICER, CHANDIGARH vs. CHARANDEEP SINGH, CHANDIGARH

Accordingly, the C.O. is dismissed as not pressed

house (30%\nshare), H. No. 1008. Sector BC, built up on old plot No. 9.\nSector BC, Chandigarh for a consideration of Rs.\n1,87,50,000/- on 27.07.2015 i.e. during the assessment\nyear 2016-17. No explanation regarding source of these\ninvestments have been furnished. The onus was upon the\nassessee to prove the source of investment made

RICO AUTO INDUSTRIES LIMITED,LUDHIANA vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, LUDHIANA

The appeals stand allowed in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.702/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21) & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.703/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22) M/S Rico Auto Industries Ltd. Pr. Cit-1 बनाम/ B-26, Focal Point Aaykar Bhawan, Rishi Nagar Vs. Ludhiana (Punjab)-141010 Ludhiana (Punjab) - 141001 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacr-8724-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Smt. Kusum Bansal (Cit) (Virtual) – Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 07-10-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 10/11/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. In These Twin Appeals, The Assessee Assails Proposed Revision Of The Assessment Order By Revisionary Authority U/S 263 For Assessment Years (Ay) 2020-21 & 2021-22. Facts Are Stated To Be Identical In Both The Years. First, We Take Up Appeal For Ay 2020-21 Wherein The Assessee Challenges Invocation Of Revisionary Jurisdiction U/S 263 By Ld. Pr.

TDS for Rs.6.14 Lacs and alleging difference in expenses claimed under the head ‘fees for technical services’ (FTS) for Rs.12.90 Crores. Subsequently, another show-cause notice was issued on 17-03-2025 identifying more issues viz. (i) Expenses capitalized for intangible assets; (ii) non-verification of income from house property