SHRI PRINCEPREETJIT SINGH,RANJIT NAGAR vs. PR.CIT-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

sections are identical—ensuring that where capital gains are reinvested in qualifying assets, the benefit of exemption should be granted, even if such reinvestment occurs before formal execution of the transfer deed. This interpretation has received judicial recognition in multiple cases, including:  DCIT v Assa Singh in ITA No. 26/Asr/2015 dated 11.3.2016, ITAT Amritsar.  Ramesh Narhari Jakhadi

BIMLA DEVI,JAGADHRI 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

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

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

SH. GURDEEP SINGH MAHAL,SIRSA 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

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

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. BALJINDER SINGH,CHANDIGARH vs. PR.CIT, CHANDIGARH -1, CHANDIGARH

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

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

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

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

PARVEEN KUMAR,229,VILLAGE MANAKPUR-II,TEHSIL JAGADHRI,HARYANA vs. PRABHJOT KAUR,PCIT PANCHKULA, CHANDIGARH

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

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

MADHU GREWAL,CHANDIGARH vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHANDIGARH-1, CHANDIGARH

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

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

SH. AMARJEET SINGH,SIRSA 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

INDER KAUR,SIRSA 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