SHEO RAM,YAMUNA NAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-4 , YAMUNA NAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahay

Assessing Officer, however, held that since the land sold was situated within the M.C. limit of Jagadhari, the assessee was liable for Capital Gain Tax. He, therefore, reopened

WINSOME TEXTILE INDUSTRIES LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1), CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

reopened under section 147 after recording reasons relating to taxability of exchange rate gains earned by the assessee on GDR proceeds which were not repatriated to India immediately and thus income has escaped assessment and notice under section 148 was issued on 26/03/2017. Thereafter after considering the submissions filed by the assessee, the AO framed the assessment under section

ITO, WARD, PARWANOO vs. M/S PREETHI HIMACHAL & COMPANY, NALAGARH

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

capital gains. Thereafter, the assessment was reopened on the same issue u/s 147 r.w.s 148 of the Act and vide

ITO, WARD, PARWANOO vs. M/S PREETHI HIMACHAL & COMPANY, NALAGARH

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

capital gains. Thereafter, the assessment was reopened on the same issue u/s 147 r.w.s 148 of the Act and vide

SMT. TEENA GARG,CHANDIGARH vs. PCIT, PANCHKULA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

reopening of the case were incorrect as the amount of LTCG\n(Rs.60,65,7241/- ) mentioned in the reasons was incorrect as against\nthe actual capital gain of Rs.28,75,041 (Sale proceeds of Rs.\n29,88,945 LESS cost of acquisition of Rs.1,13,904) and the\ngenuineness of the said capital gain was proved by the assessee\nvide

AJMER SINGH,MOHALI vs. ITO, W-6(5), MOHAL

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Disposal Of Appeal.”

Capital Gain' but 'income from other sources". The assessee's alternate plea that the entire sale proceeds would qualify as agricultural income does not hold in light of ITAT's clear cut finding that the proceeds, in excess o f the amount considered for stamp duty valuation & consequent registration, shall partake the character of 'income from other sources' and assessed

ITO, W-6(5), MOHALI vs. SMT. GURDEV KAUR, KHARAR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Disposal Of Appeal.”

Capital Gain' but 'income from other sources". The assessee's alternate plea that the entire sale proceeds would qualify as agricultural income does not hold in light of ITAT's clear cut finding that the proceeds, in excess o f the amount considered for stamp duty valuation & consequent registration, shall partake the character of 'income from other sources' and assessed

AJMER SINGH,MOHALI vs. ITO, W-6(5), MOHAL

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Disposal Of Appeal.”

Capital Gain' but 'income from other sources". The assessee's alternate plea that the entire sale proceeds would qualify as agricultural income does not hold in light of ITAT's clear cut finding that the proceeds, in excess o f the amount considered for stamp duty valuation & consequent registration, shall partake the character of 'income from other sources' and assessed

SURESH KUMAR,YAMUNANAGAR vs. ITO, W-4, YAMUNANAGAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahay

capital gain will be taxable upon the assessee. However, the compensation has been received by the assessee after incorporation of Section 10(37) of the Act, hence, assessee is entitled for the benefit of this Section and the alleged interest received by him u/s 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, which are treated at par with the enhanced compensation

KARTAR SINGH, FATEHABAD vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

capital gains on transfer of agricultural land and does not govern taxability of interest which is separately brought to charge under section 56(2)(viii). 12. The contention of the assessee regarding jurisdiction of Delhi High Court on account of faceless assessment was also rejected. The Ld. Pr. CIT held that jurisdiction remained with Chandigarh, where the assessee is assessed

RAM NIWAS,FATEHABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, INCOME TAX OFFICE, SIRSA ROAD, INDUSTRIAL AREA, FATEHABAD

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

capital gains on transfer of agricultural land and does not govern taxability of interest which is separately brought to charge under section 56(2)(viii). 12. The contention of the assessee regarding jurisdiction of Delhi High Court on account of faceless assessment was also rejected. The Ld. Pr. CIT held that jurisdiction remained with Chandigarh, where the assessee is assessed

SH. DEVENDER KUMAR,YAMUNA NAGAR vs. ITO, WARD -1, YAMUNA NAGAR

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

capital gains on transfer of agricultural land and does not govern taxability of interest which is separately brought to charge under section 56(2)(viii). 12. The contention of the assessee regarding jurisdiction of Delhi High Court on account of faceless assessment was also rejected. The Ld. Pr. CIT held that jurisdiction remained with Chandigarh, where the assessee is assessed

ASHOK KUMAR THAKRAL,JAGADHRI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PANCHKULA , PANCHKULA

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

Bench: the Tribunal as pointed out by the Registry. Considering that the issue involved is purely legal in nature, and respectfully following the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji & Others [(1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC)], which emphasizes that substantial justice should prevail over technical considerations, we condone the delay in filing these appeals.3. We shall take appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 167/Chd/2023 for A.Y 2018-19 as a lead case f

capital gains on transfer of agricultural land and does not govern taxability of interest which is separately brought to charge under section 56(2)(viii). 12. The contention of the assessee regarding jurisdiction of Delhi High Court on account of faceless assessment was also rejected. The Ld. Pr. CIT held that jurisdiction remained with Chandigarh, where the assessee is assessed

KARAN PRATAP SINGH,SIRSA, HARYANA vs. ITO, WARD-1, SIRSA, HARYANA

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

capital gains on transfer of agricultural land and does not govern taxability of interest which is separately brought to charge under section 56(2)(viii). 12. The contention of the assessee regarding jurisdiction of Delhi High Court on account of faceless assessment was also rejected. The Ld. Pr. CIT held that jurisdiction remained with Chandigarh, where the assessee is assessed

RAKESH KUMAR,JAGADHRI vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PANCHKULA

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

capital gains on transfer of agricultural land and does not govern taxability of interest which is separately brought to charge under section 56(2)(viii). 12. The contention of the assessee regarding jurisdiction of Delhi High Court on account of faceless assessment was also rejected. The Ld. Pr. CIT held that jurisdiction remained with Chandigarh, where the assessee is assessed

ANIL TUTEJA,FATEHABAD vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ROHTAK, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

Bench: BEFORE: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

capital gains on transfer of agricultural land and does not govern taxability of interest which is separately brought to charge under section 56(2)(viii). 12. The contention of the assessee regarding jurisdiction of Delhi High Court on account of faceless assessment was also rejected. The Ld. Pr. CIT held that jurisdiction remained with Chandigarh, where the assessee is assessed

MANINDER JEET SINGH V.P.O. UDHAMGARH,JAGADHRI,HARYANA vs. PRABHJOT KAUR,PCIT, PANCHKULA

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

capital gains on transfer of agricultural land and does not govern taxability of interest which is separately brought to charge under section 56(2)(viii). 12. The contention of the assessee regarding jurisdiction of Delhi High Court on account of faceless assessment was also rejected. The Ld. Pr. CIT held that jurisdiction remained with Chandigarh, where the assessee is assessed

SH. RAM LAL,FATEHABAD vs. PR.CIT, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

capital gains on transfer of agricultural land and does not govern taxability of interest which is separately brought to charge under section 56(2)(viii). 12. The contention of the assessee regarding jurisdiction of Delhi High Court on account of faceless assessment was also rejected. The Ld. Pr. CIT held that jurisdiction remained with Chandigarh, where the assessee is assessed

MUNISH KUMAR LEGAL HEIR LATE SH GURDEEP SINGH,VILL MANAKPUR, YAMUNANAGAR vs. ITO, WARD 5, YAMUNANAGAR

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

capital gains on transfer of agricultural land and does not govern taxability of interest which is separately brought to charge under section 56(2)(viii). 12. The contention of the assessee regarding jurisdiction of Delhi High Court on account of faceless assessment was also rejected. The Ld. Pr. CIT held that jurisdiction remained with Chandigarh, where the assessee is assessed