SH. RAGHUNATH SAHAI PURI(DECD),PATHANKOT vs. THE DEPTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PATHANKOT

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

Bench: Sh. N. K. Choudhry & Sh. O. P. Meenai.T.A. No. 633/Asr/2014 Assessment Year: 2007-08

capital gains tax having been decided in favour of the assessee, the question of exemption under Section 54F of the Act would

SMT. ZEENAB,SRINAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(3),, SRINAGAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue Department stands dismissed, whereas the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes on the aforesaid reasons stated above

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N.K.Choudhry

section 2(14) of the Income tax Act and duly held by the assessee for last 17 years. Thus, the addition made by the AO on account of Short Term Capital Gain is deleted. Ground of appeal No. 5: The AO has denied the exemption u/s. 54F

ITO, WARD- 3(3), SRINAGAR vs. SMT. ZEENAB, BEMINA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue Department stands dismissed, whereas the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes on the aforesaid reasons stated above

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N.K.Choudhry

section 2(14) of the Income tax Act and duly held by the assessee for last 17 years. Thus, the addition made by the AO on account of Short Term Capital Gain is deleted. Ground of appeal No. 5: The AO has denied the exemption u/s. 54F

SH. SARJU MITTAL,KATHUA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, KATHUA

In the result, these appeals of the assessees are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No. 503/Asr/2017 Assessment Year: 2011-12

section 50 C of the act, hence the AO has adopted ₹ 4,050,000 as deemed to be the value of consideration as the assessee was being co-owner, having half share in the said property for the purpose of Computing capital gains and accordingly computed long- term capital gains where the AO has rejected the assessee’s claim

NEERAJ MITTAL,KATHUA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , KATHUA

In the result, these appeals of the assessees are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No. 503/Asr/2017 Assessment Year: 2011-12

section 50 C of the act, hence the AO has adopted ₹ 4,050,000 as deemed to be the value of consideration as the assessee was being co-owner, having half share in the said property for the purpose of Computing capital gains and accordingly computed long- term capital gains where the AO has rejected the assessee’s claim

SHRI ARNESH KUMAR SHAKAR EX. MLA,HOSHIARPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD, DASUYA

In the result, appeal of the assessee ITA No

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

capital gain benefit fund and intended to invest this for purchasing the new property. Accordingly, the assessee purchased a residential house amount to Rs.35,64,000/- on dated 16.02.2010. The assesseehad contravened of provision of 54F of the Act for not investing the amount within two years from the date of receiving the payment therefore, the benefit of section

SHRI AVINASH CHANDER BHALLA,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFIER WARD 3(1), JALANDHAR

Bench: Sh. Ravish Sood & Dr. M. L. Meena

capital gain” (LTCG) was determined after applying the provisions of section 50C of the Act at Rs. 14.20 lakh. As the assessee had deposited an amount of Rs. 9.50 lakhs in his CGAS account held with Punjab and Sind Bank, therefore, the AO after allowing his claim for deduction u/s 54F

SHRI GURKHA SINGH ALIAS JOGINDER SINGH ,BATHINDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFIER WARD 1(1), BATHINDA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No.145/Asr/2018 Assessment Year: 2009-10

gain as it is not a capital asset as the same is beyond 8 km from the Municipal Limits of Bathinda. 4. That the learned AO erred in not considering the expenses of Rs. 600000/- in financial year 1987-88 for the improvement of agricultural land in question withdrawn from saving bank account of my father which was produced before

SHRI SUKHEV SINGH ,BATHINDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(2), BATHINDA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

54F of the Act. This is further supported by the fact that the assessee was present in the Tehsil for the registration of purchase deed not the wife. 9. That in any case, the sale proceeds of agricultural land sold in financial year 2008-09 in question is agricultural income. So, it is tax free income. Accordingly, the addition made

DAVINDER SINGH,SAMAOH PUNJAB vs. ITO WARD 1(4), MANSA, MANSA,PUNJAB

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

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Physical Hearing) I.T.A. No. 214/Asr/2025 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Sh. Davinder Singh, Bhal Patti, Vs. Ito, Ward-1(4), Samaon, Matti B.O. Kotra, Mansa. Mansa, Punjab. [Pan:-Abmps3429E] (Appellant) (Respondent) Sh. Rohit Kapoor, Adv & Sh. Appellant By Himanshu Gupta, Ca Respondent By Sh. Charan Dass, Sr. Dr

54F which has arisen on the sale of land resulting in long-term capital gain. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the sale consideration declared by the assessee in income tax return was less than the sale consideration reported in Form 26QB (Form 26QB and schedule CG of ITR) and claim of large exempt income (Schedule

SMT. JANAK RANI DHINGRA,HARYANA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,, MOGA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. N. S. Saini & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi. T. A. No. 294/(Asr)/2016 Assessment Year: 2006-07

54F of the Act are allowable to the Assessee only on construction or purchase of new residential house, therefore, he made additon of Rs. 4,40,000/- disallowing the deduction of Long Term Capital Gains from sale of residential house as declared by the Assessee. Thereafter, the AO levied penalty

SH. LALIT DEEWAN,JAMMU vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-2, JAMMU

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi. T. A. No. 453/Asr/2017 Assessment Year: 2013-14

section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' hereinafter) vide order dated 22.01.2016 for Assessment Year (AY) 2013-14. 2. The facts of the case in-so-far as are relevant are that the assessee sold an immovable property, being a plot of land (at Gattha Sohana, Haryana) during the 2 Lalit Dewan v. Dy. CIT relevant year