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 54F

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

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

Capital Gain Account No. 12299 held with Punjab and Sind Bank, Mota Singh Nagar, Jalandhar, therefore, there was no justification on the part of the AO to have drawn a belief that the income of the assessee on the sale of the property under consideration i.e. LTCG arising there from had escaped assessment. Backed by his aforesaid contention

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considering the expenses of Rs. 600000/- in financial year 1987-88 for the improvement of agricultural land in question withdrawn from saving bank account of my father which was produced before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

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 EI of ITR)”. The assessee has sold a property (land) measuring 13 biswa for consideration