M/S PURE DRINK LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT,CIRCLE, PATIALA

Bench: Hon'Ble Chandigarh Itat Was 27Th March 2020. (Ii) It Is Submitted That Management Of Appellant Company Is Based Is Delhi. Owing To Covid-19 Pandemic Nationwide Lock Down Was Enforced By The Government From 22Nd March 2020 & Therefore The Appellant Was Unable To Physically File The Appeal Documents Before Hon'Ble Itat.

Capital Gains Tax as per provisions of section 48. 4. Provisions of Rule 46A are reproduced below for sake of easy

SHRI PARDEEP KUMAR JAIN,ZIRAKPUR vs. ITO, W-2(3), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 190/Chd/2019 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Shri Pradeep Kumar Jain, The Ito, Ward 2(3), बनाम Chandigarh Flat No.222, Orbit Apartments, 6Th Floor, Zirakpur "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Advpj6719P अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

gains in an account which is duly notified by the Central Government. In other words if he want of claim exemption from payment of income tax by retaining the cash, then the said amount is to be invested in the said account. If the intention is not to retain cash but to invest in construction or any purchase

SHOBHA SHARMA,SIRSA vs. ITO-WARD-3, SIRSA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

46A of the Rules, it is seen that the assessee had filed the computation of capital gains before the CIT(A). As per this computation, it is seen that the assessee had computed the long term capital gains (LTCC) at Rs.19,54,873/- on the sale proceeds of the said property at Rs.46,65,000/-, after claiming indexed cost

SHRI KESAR SINGH,MOHALI vs. ITO, W-6(4), MOHALI

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed for statistical purposes

gains were offset by the operatibility of sections 54B and 54F (credit for 54B was given by the AO) clearly is taken as a concession on its part that the land transaction was one of a capital asset. The claims of the assessee by themselves corroborate the AO's findings that the land in contention was a capital asset

SHRI GURDEEP SINGH,MOHALI vs. ITO, W-6(4), MOHALI

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed for statistical purposes

gains were offset by the operatibility of sections 54B and 54F (credit for 54B was given by the AO) clearly is taken as a concession on its part that the land transaction was one of a capital asset. The claims of the assessee by themselves corroborate the AO's findings that the land in contention was a capital asset

SHRI DIDAR SINGH,MOHALI vs. ITO, W-6(4), MOHALI

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed for statistical purposes

gains were offset by the operatibility of sections 54B and 54F (credit for 54B was given by the AO) clearly is taken as a concession on its part that the land transaction was one of a capital asset. The claims of the assessee by themselves corroborate the AO's findings that the land in contention was a capital asset

SHRI BALJINDER SINGH,MOHALI vs. ITO, W-6(4), MOHALI

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed for statistical purposes

gains were offset by the operatibility of sections 54B and 54F (credit for 54B was given by the AO) clearly is taken as a concession on its part that the land transaction was one of a capital asset. The claims of the assessee by themselves corroborate the AO's findings that the land in contention was a capital asset

SHRI DARSHAN SINGH,MOHALI vs. ITO, W-6(4), MOHALI

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed for statistical purposes

gains were offset by the operatibility of sections 54B and 54F (credit for 54B was given by the AO) clearly is taken as a concession on its part that the land transaction was one of a capital asset. The claims of the assessee by themselves corroborate the AO's findings that the land in contention was a capital asset

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), CHANDIGARH vs. POONAM KHETRAPAL SINGH, CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1000/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2021-22 Dcit, Poonam Khetrapal Singh, बनाम Circle 1(1), H. No 816, Sector 16, Chandigarh Chandigarh. Vs. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Anqps6367R अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent ( Hybrid Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Sh. Ashish Kumar Singh, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Smt Kusum Bansal, Cit Dr (Virtual Mode) सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 15-05-2025 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 06-08-2025 आदेश/Order Per Krinwant Sahay, Am: Appeal In This Case Has Been Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 29.7.2024 Of Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi.

46A of the Income Tax Rule, 1962 read with Section 295(2)(mm) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 1000-Chd-2024 Poonam Khetrapal Singh, Chandigarh 3 5 It is prayed that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer may be restored. 6. The appellant craves leave to add or amend

PAWAN KUMAR SINGLA,PANCHKULA vs. DCIT, CC-I, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the assessee’s appeal on the various grounds raised is dismissed

Bench: Final Hearing.

capital gains of Rs. 10,46,354 (Rs. 20,12,000 – Rs. 9,65,646) and added this amount to the taxable income. Consequently, the total assessed income was revised to Rs. 15,56,812 (Rs. 4,46,680 + Rs. 63,778 + Rs 10,46,354). The AO also initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) for concealment

MANJEET KAUR KAMBOJ,YAMUNA NAGAR HARYANA vs. ITO WARD-2, YAMUNA NAGAR HARYANA, YAMUNA NAGAR HARYANA

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumat & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 550/Chd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Manjit Kaur Kamboj, Ito Ward-2, Lotus Valley Public School, बनाम Yamuna Nagar, Sector – 18, Huda, Haryana Vs. Yamunanagar, Haryana "ायी लेखा सं./Pan No. Abmpk5213G अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ"/Respondent ( Physical Hearing ) िनधा""रती की ओर से/Assessee By : Ms. Meenal Goyal, Ca & Sh. Abhinav Jain, Adv. राज" की ओर से/ Revenue By : Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18.11.2025 उदघोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20.11.2025 आदेश/Order Shri Laliet Kumar: Appeal In This Case Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 21.03.2024 Of Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For A.Y. 2012-13. 2. Grounds Of Appeal, As Taken By The Assessee In Form 36, Are Reproduced As Under:

46A, placed before both authorities demonstrating that the land sold by the Appellant is a rural agricultural land and hence not a capital asset. 3 For that on the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned orders are unsustainable in law since the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the Ld. A.O. passed the 2nd impugned order without

PAWAN KUMAR SINGLA,PANCHKULA vs. DCIT, CC-I, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the assessee's appeal on the various grounds raised\nis dismissed

capital gains of\nRs.10,46,354 (Rs.20,12,000 – Rs.9,65,646) and added this amount to\nthe taxable income. Consequently, the total assessed income was\nrevised to Rs.15,56,812 (Rs.4,46,680 + Rs.63,778 + Rs 10,46,354). The\nAO also initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) for\nconcealment of income and issued a demand notice

PANKAJ GUPTA,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: The Appeal Is Finally Heard Or Disposed Off. 4. That The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax Is Erroneous, Arbitrary, Opposed To Law & Facts Of The Case & Is, Thus, Untenable.” 3. Briefly The Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income On 03/08/2018 Which Was Selected For Scrutiny & During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, The Assessee Was Asked To Provide Details Of The Asset Sold Along With Supporting Documentation Substantiating The Claim For Long Term Capital Gain (Ltcg).

section 133(6) from the Tehsildar of Derabassi seeking information about the crops sown, the total production from the land etc. Thereafter, the Teshildar vide his letter dt. 20/11/2018 furnished the copy of the khasra girdawari for the period 1992 to 1997 and 1998 to 2002 and has given the information regarding the crop being shown as Gair Mumkin Safeda

ITO, SIRSA vs. SH. MAHABIR SINGH, SIRSA

In the result, we do not find any merit in this appeal of the Revenue

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 900/Chd/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08 The Ito, Shri Mahabir Singh, Ward – 2, Vs S/O Shri Het Ram, Vpo Bani, Sirsa. Tehsil-Rania, Distt. Sirsa. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Cdvpm5319N अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Vineet Krishan, Advocate Revenue By : Smt. Kusum Bansal, Cit Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 24.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.09.2025

Capital Gain amounting to Rs.3,03,25,000/- has arisen in the hands of the assessee. Accordingly, ld. AO has made an addition of this amount and passed the ex-parte assessment order on 22.03.2013 u/s 144 read with Section 147 of the Income Tax Act. It is pertinent to note that Section 144 empowers the AO to pass

BALWANT SINGH DHINDSA, ADV. SO KARTAR SINGH, #185 STREET NO. 11, PUNIA COLONY, SANGRUR, PUNJAB,PUNJAB vs. ITO WARD SANGRUR, PUNJAB

In the result, appeal of the assessee is\ndismissed

capital gain in ROI [belated] has been considered\nsubject to verification by ld. AO only as explained sum.\nThe assessee is directed to file relevant submission\nbefore ld. AO for proper verification.\n3.11\nWith\nregard to remaining\ndeposit\nof\nRs.18,07,500/- it was claimed that assessee had received\ncash of Rs.4.50 lakh as agriculture lease income.\nFurther

RAMESH KUMAR,NEW DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3, PANCHKULA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

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

section 144 was also issued to the assessee, however in absence of any explanation/submission filed by the assessee, the AO proceeded and completed the assessment proceedings stating that since the assessee has not furnished any explanation in respect of the sale of the property amounting to Rs. 3,15,00,000/- and has not provided the detail of capital gains

SUBHASH,YAMUNANAGAR vs. ITO, WARD-3, YAMUNANAGAR, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A) & One Of The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Relates To Non-Grant Of Deduction Under Section 54B & 54F Of The Act. 3. During The Course Of Appellate Proceedings, The Assessee Also Moved An Application Under Section 46A Of The Act Which Was Forwarded To The Ao & Remand

Capital Gain (LTCG). Thereafter, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) and one of the grounds raised by the assessee relates to non-grant of deduction under section 54B and 54F of the Act. 3. During the course of appellate proceedings, the assessee also moved an application under section 46A

HARBHOL SINGH,SUNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD SUNAM

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Krinwant Sahay, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.788/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Harbhol Singh Ito H. No. 863, Village – Sheron, Aayakar Bhawan, Income Tax बनाम/ Vs. Suman Road, Sunam Officer, Ward Sunam, Sangrur District : Sangrur Punjab - 148028 Punjab - 148028 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Cssps-9948-F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Deepinder Singh (Advocate) ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Vivek Vardhan (Addl. Cit) Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26-02-2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 19-03-2026 : आदेश / O R D E R Krinwant Sahay () This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)/ Nfac, Delhi Dt. 16/05/2025 For The Assessment Year 2012-13. In The Present Appeal Assessee Raised The Following Grounds:

Capital Gains. Additionally, the AO added Rs. 16,50,000/- as unexplained money under section 69A, noting that the cash deposits were made on 13.10.2011, whereas the land sale occurred later on 08.12.2011. The total income was assessed at Rs. 81,79,120/- via an ex-parte order under section 144 r.w.s. 147 dated 23.12.2019. 5. Against the order

M/S SHUBHAM COTTON MILLS PVT. LTD.,ELLENABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE, SIRSA

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

gains", is a loss, the assessee shall be entitled to have the amount of such loss set off against his income from any other source under the same head. (2) Where the result of the computation made for any assessment year under sections 48 to 55 in respect of any short-term capital asset is a loss, the assessee shall