SMT. SHANKRI DEVI,PANCHKULA vs. ACIT, PANCKULA CIRCLE, PANCHKULA

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

capital gains computation in either the original or revised return to demonstrate the applicability of section 10(37). It was held that exemption under section 10(37) cannot be presumed and must be reflected through proper computation, which was lacking in the present case. The Ld. CIT(A) also echoed the AO’s view that filing a revised return

INCOME TAX OFFICER, FATEHABAD vs. MAHESH NAGPAL, FATEHABAD

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

capital gains computation in either the original or revised return to demonstrate the applicability of section 10(37). It was held that exemption under section 10(37) cannot be presumed and must be reflected through proper computation, which was lacking in the present case. The Ld. CIT(A) also echoed the AO’s view that filing a revised return

RANJIT SINGH,PANCHKULA vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR, CPC DEPARTMENT

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

capital gains computation in either the original or revised return to demonstrate the applicability of section 10(37). It was held that exemption under section 10(37) cannot be presumed and must be reflected through proper computation, which was lacking in the present case. The Ld. CIT(A) also echoed the AO’s view that filing a revised return

PAWAN KUMAR,FATEHABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, FATEHABAD

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

capital gains computation in either the original or revised return to demonstrate the applicability of section 10(37). It was held that exemption under section 10(37) cannot be presumed and must be reflected through proper computation, which was lacking in the present case. The Ld. CIT(A) also echoed the AO’s view that filing a revised return

SAROJ CHAUDHARY BALA,PANCHKULA vs. ITO, WARD-4, PANCHKULA

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

capital gains computation in either the original or revised return to demonstrate the applicability of section 10(37). It was held that exemption under section 10(37) cannot be presumed and must be reflected through proper computation, which was lacking in the present case. The Ld. CIT(A) also echoed the AO’s view that filing a revised return

ARJESH KUMAR,PATIALA vs. ITO NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE , DELHI

capital gains computation in either the original or revised return to demonstrate the applicability of section 10(37). It was held that exemption under section 10(37) cannot be presumed and must be reflected through proper computation, which was lacking in the present case. The Ld. CIT(A) also echoed the AO’s view that filing a revised return

BALBIR KUMAR HUF,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO , CHANDIGARH

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

capital gains computation in either the original or revised return to demonstrate the applicability of section 10(37). It was held that exemption under section 10(37) cannot be presumed and must be reflected through proper computation, which was lacking in the present case. The Ld. CIT(A) also echoed the AO’s view that filing a revised return

SH. AMARDEEP SINGH ATHWAL,YAMUNANAGAR vs. ITO, WARD-1, YAMUNANAGAR

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

capital gains computation in either the original or revised return to demonstrate the applicability of section 10(37). It was held that exemption under section 10(37) cannot be presumed and must be reflected through proper computation, which was lacking in the present case. The Ld. CIT(A) also echoed the AO’s view that filing a revised return

SH. AMAR SINGH,JAGADHARI vs. ITO, YAMUNANAGAR

In the result, both the appeal of different assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

13. In ground Nos.1, 2 & 3, assessee challenged the order of ld. CIT(Appeals) in upholding the addition of Rs. 1,88,43,554/- on account of long term capital gain on sale of agricultural land and in denying the deduction under section

SH. JAI RAM,JAGADHARI vs. ITO, YAMUNANAGAR

In the result, both the appeal of different assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

13. In ground Nos.1, 2 & 3, assessee challenged the order of ld. CIT(Appeals) in upholding the addition of Rs. 1,88,43,554/- on account of long term capital gain on sale of agricultural land and in denying the deduction under section

M/S YOGRAJ CHAUDHARY,YAMUNA NAGAR vs. ITO, WARD-5, YAMUNA NAGAR

Capital gains\"\n48. Against the abovesaid decision the SLP filed by the assessee was\ndismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the order of the Hon'ble\nSupreme Court was reported in [2021] 126 taxmann.com 105 (SC)/[2021] 279\nTaxman 74 (SC)/[2..\n49. Similarly the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT Vs. Inderjit\nSingh

AMRINDER SINGH KHUBBER,AMBALA vs. ITO, W-5, AMBALA

Accordingly, finding no merit in the appeals, the same are hereby\ndismissed

13, Block-B, Vishnu Garden\nJagadhari- 135003, Haryana\nबनाम\nThe ITO\nWard-4,\nYamuna Nagar, Haryana\nस्थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: FMGPS1721D\nअपीलार्थी/Appellant\nनिर्धारिती की ओर से/Assessee by :\nराजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by :\nShri Ajay Jain, C.A (Virtual)\nShri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR\nआयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 92 /Chd/2024\nनिर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2014-15\nBaljeet

JAGPAL SINGH,CHANDIGARH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 5(5), CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

13, Block-B, Vishnu Garden\nJagadhari- 135003, Haryana\nThe ITO\nWard-4,\nYamuna Nagar, Haryana\nस्थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: FMGPS1721D\nअपीलार्थी/Appellant\nनिर्धारिती की ओर से/Assessee by :\nNone\nराजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by :\nShri Ajay Jain, C.A (Virtual)\nShri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR\nआयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 92 /Chd/2024\nनिर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2014-15\nBaljeet

SUSHMA,HARYANA vs. ITO, WARD - 4, YAMUNA NAGAR, YAMUNA NAGAR

13, Block-B, Vishnu Garden\nJagadhari- 135003, Haryana\nबनाम\nThe ITO\nWard-4,\nYamuna Nagar, Haryana\nस्थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: FMGPS1721D\nअपीलार्थी/Appellant\nनिर्धारिती की ओर से/Assessee by :\nNone\nराजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by :\nShri Ajay Jain, C.A (Virtual)\nShri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR\nआयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 92 /Chd/2024\nनिर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year

RAJBIR SINGH,VILL. GARHI BANJARA vs. ITO, WARD-3, YAMUNANAGAR

13, Block-B, Vishnu Garden\nJagadhari- 135003, Haryana\nस्थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: FMGPS1721D\nअपीलार्थी/Appellant\nबनाम\nThe ITO\nWard-4,\nYamuna Nagar, Haryana\nनिर्धारिती की ओर से/Assessee by :\nNone\nराजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by :\nShri Ajay Jain, C.A (Virtual)\nShri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR\nआयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 92 /Chd/2024\nनिर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year

AMRINDER SINGH KHUBBER,AMBALA vs. ITO, W-5, AMBALA

13, Block-B, Vishnu Garden\nJagadhari- 135003, Haryana\nबनाम\nThe ITO\nWard-4,\nYamuna Nagar, Haryana\nस्थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: FMGPS1721D\nअपीलार्थी/Appellant\nनिर्धारिती की ओर से/Assessee by :\nराजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by :\nShri Ajay Jain, C.A (Virtual)\nShri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR\nआयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 92 /Chd/2024\nनिर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2014-15\nBaljeet

BALVINDER SINGH,FATEHABAD vs. ITO WARD-1, FATEHABAD

13, Block-B, Vishnu Garden\nJagadhri- 135003, Haryana\nबनाम\nThe ITO\nWard-4,\nYamuna Nagar, Haryana\nस्थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: FMGPS1721D\nअपीलार्थी/Appellant\nनिर्धारिती की ओर से/Assessee by :\nShri Ajay Jain, C.A (Virtual)\nShri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR\nराजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by :\nआयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 92 /Chd/2024\nनिर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2014-15\nBaljeet

SAT PAL,CHANDIGARH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 5(5), , CHANDIGARH

13, Block-B, Vishnu Garden\nJagadhari- 135003, Haryana\nबनाम\nThe ITO\nWard-4,\nYamuna Nagar, Haryana\nस्थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: FMGPS1721D\nअपीलार्थी/Appellant\nनिर्धारिती की ओर से/Assessee by :\nShri Ajay Jain, C.A (Virtual)\nराजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by :\nShri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR\nआयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 92 /Chd/2024\nनिर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2014-15\nBaljeet