SH. ASHISH JAIN,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-III, LUDHIANA

In the result, the ground no

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

Capital Gain (LTCG) under section 10(38) amounting to Rs. 87,04,733/-. The return of income was thereafter processed under section 143(1) and thereafter, no notice under section 143(2) was issued within the statutory time period. 4.1 Subsequently, search and seizure operation under section 132(1) were carried out at the residential and business premises

SH. AKHIL JAIN,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-III, LUDHIANA

In the result, the ground no

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

Capital Gain (LTCG) under section 10(38) amounting to Rs. 87,04,733/-. The return of income was thereafter processed under section 143(1) and thereafter, no notice under section 143(2) was issued within the statutory time period. 4.1 Subsequently, search and seizure operation under section 132(1) were carried out at the residential and business premises

SH. BIPAN JAIN,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-III, LUDHIANA

In the result, the ground no

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

Capital Gain (LTCG) under section 10(38) amounting to Rs. 87,04,733/-. The return of income was thereafter processed under section 143(1) and thereafter, no notice under section 143(2) was issued within the statutory time period. 4.1 Subsequently, search and seizure operation under section 132(1) were carried out at the residential and business premises

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 and consequently, would also get benefit of section 10(37) if the land compulsorily acquired was agricultural land. (Copy appended at page 154-162 of ws).  ITO vs Shri Prabhayya Basayya Reliance is also placed on (858/Bang/2018) (Bangalore ITAT) (Copy appended at page 40-55 of AJC-2): “4.3 ……we are of the view that

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 and consequently, would also get benefit of section 10(37) if the land compulsorily acquired was agricultural land. (Copy appended at page 154-162 of ws).  ITO vs Shri Prabhayya Basayya Reliance is also placed on (858/Bang/2018) (Bangalore ITAT) (Copy appended at page 40-55 of AJC-2): “4.3 ……we are of the view that

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 and consequently, would also get benefit of section 10(37) if the land compulsorily acquired was agricultural land. (Copy appended at page 154-162 of ws).  ITO vs Shri Prabhayya Basayya Reliance is also placed on (858/Bang/2018) (Bangalore ITAT) (Copy appended at page 40-55 of AJC-2): “4.3 ……we are of the view that

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 and consequently, would also get benefit of section 10(37) if the land compulsorily acquired was agricultural land. (Copy appended at page 154-162 of ws).  ITO vs Shri Prabhayya Basayya Reliance is also placed on (858/Bang/2018) (Bangalore ITAT) (Copy appended at page 40-55 of AJC-2): “4.3 ……we are of the view that

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 and consequently, would also get benefit of section 10(37) if the land compulsorily acquired was agricultural land. (Copy appended at page 154-162 of ws).  ITO vs Shri Prabhayya Basayya Reliance is also placed on (858/Bang/2018) (Bangalore ITAT) (Copy appended at page 40-55 of AJC-2): “4.3 ……we are of the view that

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 and consequently, would also get benefit of section 10(37) if the land compulsorily acquired was agricultural land. (Copy appended at page 154-162 of ws).  ITO vs Shri Prabhayya Basayya Reliance is also placed on (858/Bang/2018) (Bangalore ITAT) (Copy appended at page 40-55 of AJC-2): “4.3 ……we are of the view that

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 and consequently, would also get benefit of section 10(37) if the land compulsorily acquired was agricultural land. (Copy appended at page 154-162 of ws).  ITO vs Shri Prabhayya Basayya Reliance is also placed on (858/Bang/2018) (Bangalore ITAT) (Copy appended at page 40-55 of AJC-2): “4.3 ……we are of the view that

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 and consequently, would also get benefit of section 10(37) if the land compulsorily acquired was agricultural land. (Copy appended at page 154-162 of ws).  ITO vs Shri Prabhayya Basayya Reliance is also placed on (858/Bang/2018) (Bangalore ITAT) (Copy appended at page 40-55 of AJC-2): “4.3 ……we are of the view that

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 and consequently, would also get benefit of section 10(37) if the land compulsorily acquired was agricultural land. (Copy appended at page 154-162 of ws).  ITO vs Shri Prabhayya Basayya Reliance is also placed on (858/Bang/2018) (Bangalore ITAT) (Copy appended at page 40-55 of AJC-2): “4.3 ……we are of the view that

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 and consequently, would also get benefit of section 10(37) if the land compulsorily acquired was agricultural land. (Copy appended at page 154-162 of ws).  ITO vs Shri Prabhayya Basayya Reliance is also placed on (858/Bang/2018) (Bangalore ITAT) (Copy appended at page 40-55 of AJC-2): “4.3 ……we are of the view that

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 and consequently, would also get benefit of section 10(37) if the land compulsorily acquired was agricultural land. (Copy appended at page 154-162 of ws).  ITO vs Shri Prabhayya Basayya Reliance is also placed on (858/Bang/2018) (Bangalore ITAT) (Copy appended at page 40-55 of AJC-2): “4.3 ……we are of the view that

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 and consequently, would also get benefit of section 10(37) if the land compulsorily acquired was agricultural land. (Copy appended at page 154-162 of ws).  ITO vs Shri Prabhayya Basayya Reliance is also placed on (858/Bang/2018) (Bangalore ITAT) (Copy appended at page 40-55 of AJC-2): “4.3 ……we are of the view that

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 and consequently, would also get benefit of section 10(37) if the land compulsorily acquired was agricultural land. (Copy appended at page 154-162 of ws).  ITO vs Shri Prabhayya Basayya Reliance is also placed on (858/Bang/2018) (Bangalore ITAT) (Copy appended at page 40-55 of AJC-2): “4.3 ……we are of the view that

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 and consequently, would also get benefit of section 10(37) if the land compulsorily acquired was agricultural land. (Copy appended at page 154-162 of ws).  ITO vs Shri Prabhayya Basayya Reliance is also placed on (858/Bang/2018) (Bangalore ITAT) (Copy appended at page 40-55 of AJC-2): “4.3 ……we are of the view that

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 and consequently, would also get benefit of section 10(37) if the land compulsorily acquired was agricultural land. (Copy appended at page 154-162 of ws).  ITO vs Shri Prabhayya Basayya Reliance is also placed on (858/Bang/2018) (Bangalore ITAT) (Copy appended at page 40-55 of AJC-2): “4.3 ……we are of the view that