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

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Disposal Of Appeal.”

50C was inserted by finance act 2002 w.e.f 1.4.2003 in chapter IV of IT Act 1961 which relates to computation of capital gains. However this section was again applicable only in respect of capital asset. It was only w.e.f 1.10.2009 that immovable property received without consideration, stamp duty value of which exceeded 50,000/- was brought to tax under section

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

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Disposal Of Appeal.”

50C was inserted by finance act 2002 w.e.f 1.4.2003 in chapter IV of IT Act 1961 which relates to computation of capital gains. However this section was again applicable only in respect of capital asset. It was only w.e.f 1.10.2009 that immovable property received without consideration, stamp duty value of which exceeded 50,000/- was brought to tax under section

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

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Disposal Of Appeal.”

50C was inserted by finance act 2002 w.e.f 1.4.2003 in chapter IV of IT Act 1961 which relates to computation of capital gains. However this section was again applicable only in respect of capital asset. It was only w.e.f 1.10.2009 that immovable property received without consideration, stamp duty value of which exceeded 50,000/- was brought to tax under section

SHRI RAJDEEP SINGH CHIMNI,CHANDIGARH vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the addition so made and sustained by the ld CIT(A) is hereby deleted and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

capital gains tax evasion on account of understatement of the consideration. Of course, the law provides, under section 50C(2

SH. SHIROM LAMBA,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO, WARD- 2(3), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

capital gain at Rs.83,96,328/-. Aggrieved,\nagainst the action of the AO, the assessee preferred an appeal\nbefore the CIT(A).\n4. The CIT(A) referred the matter to DVO in term of the provision\nof Section 50C(2

INCOME TAX OFFICER, MOHALI vs. GURTEJ SINGH, MOHALI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

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

50C stamp duty value at time of agreement to sell shall be applicable and which was rightly been taken by the appellant at the time of execution of registered sale deed. 3. In the appeal of Gurtej in ITA no 806/Chd/2024 9. Ld. DR submitted that the agreements dated 30.07.2009 and 15.02.2008 were cancelled through a cancellation deed dated

KANWALDEEP KAUR,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

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

50C stamp duty value at time of agreement to sell shall be applicable and which was rightly been taken by the appellant at the time of execution of registered sale deed. 3. In the appeal of Gurtej in ITA no 806/Chd/2024 9. Ld. DR submitted that the agreements dated 30.07.2009 and 15.02.2008 were cancelled through a cancellation deed dated

NEERU ARORA,CHANDIGARH vs. CIRCLE-1, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms indicated above

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

section 50C(2) to refer the matter to a Valuation Officer. This mandatory procedure was not followed, rendering the addition unsustainable. 11. The AO further erred in not granting any deduction towards indexed cost of acquisition, which is impermissible under the law. The entire value was treated as capital gain

ACIT,CIRCLE--2(1), CHANDIGARH vs. CSJ INFRASTRUCTURE PVT.LTD, CHANDIGARH

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed and that of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 131,132 /Chd/2020 "नधा"रण वष" / A.Y.: 2014-15, 2015-16, M/S Csj Infrastructure Pvt.Ltd., The Acit, C/O C.A. Ajay Kumar Jain, Vs Circle 2(1), Sco 80-81, 4Th Floor, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh. Chandigarh. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aaccc8021G अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 146, 147/Chd/2020 "नधा"रण वष" / A.Y.: 2014-15, 2015-16, The Acit, Vs M/S Csj Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Circle 2(1), C/O C.A. Ajay Kumar Jain, Chandigarh. Sco 80-81, 4Th Floor, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aaccc8021G अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ajay Jain, Ca Revenue By : Shri Manav Bansal, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 19.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.05.2025 Physical Hearing O R D E R

50C. 6. The ld. CIT DR, on the other hand, relied upon orders of Revenue Authorities. He submitted that Section 43CA is applicable because Sale Deed has been registered during the Accounting Year relevant to Financial Year 2014-15. The only benefit available to the assessee is sub-clause (3) and (4) of Section 43CA. In other words

ACIT,CIRCLE--2(1), CHANDIGARH vs. CSJ INFRASTRUCTURE PVT.LTD, CHANDIGARH

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed and that of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 131,132 /Chd/2020 "नधा"रण वष" / A.Y.: 2014-15, 2015-16, M/S Csj Infrastructure Pvt.Ltd., The Acit, C/O C.A. Ajay Kumar Jain, Vs Circle 2(1), Sco 80-81, 4Th Floor, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh. Chandigarh. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aaccc8021G अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 146, 147/Chd/2020 "नधा"रण वष" / A.Y.: 2014-15, 2015-16, The Acit, Vs M/S Csj Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Circle 2(1), C/O C.A. Ajay Kumar Jain, Chandigarh. Sco 80-81, 4Th Floor, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aaccc8021G अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ajay Jain, Ca Revenue By : Shri Manav Bansal, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 19.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.05.2025 Physical Hearing O R D E R

50C. 6. The ld. CIT DR, on the other hand, relied upon orders of Revenue Authorities. He submitted that Section 43CA is applicable because Sale Deed has been registered during the Accounting Year relevant to Financial Year 2014-15. The only benefit available to the assessee is sub-clause (3) and (4) of Section 43CA. In other words

CSJ INFRASTRUCTURE PVT.LTD,CHANDIGARH vs. ACIT,CIRCLE--2(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed and that of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 131,132 /Chd/2020 "नधा"रण वष" / A.Y.: 2014-15, 2015-16, M/S Csj Infrastructure Pvt.Ltd., The Acit, C/O C.A. Ajay Kumar Jain, Vs Circle 2(1), Sco 80-81, 4Th Floor, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh. Chandigarh. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aaccc8021G अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 146, 147/Chd/2020 "नधा"रण वष" / A.Y.: 2014-15, 2015-16, The Acit, Vs M/S Csj Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Circle 2(1), C/O C.A. Ajay Kumar Jain, Chandigarh. Sco 80-81, 4Th Floor, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aaccc8021G अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ajay Jain, Ca Revenue By : Shri Manav Bansal, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 19.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.05.2025 Physical Hearing O R D E R

50C. 6. The ld. CIT DR, on the other hand, relied upon orders of Revenue Authorities. He submitted that Section 43CA is applicable because Sale Deed has been registered during the Accounting Year relevant to Financial Year 2014-15. The only benefit available to the assessee is sub-clause (3) and (4) of Section 43CA. In other words

CSJ INFRASTRUCTURE PVT.LTD,CHANDIGARH vs. ACIT,CIRCLE--2(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed and that of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 131,132 /Chd/2020 "नधा"रण वष" / A.Y.: 2014-15, 2015-16, M/S Csj Infrastructure Pvt.Ltd., The Acit, C/O C.A. Ajay Kumar Jain, Vs Circle 2(1), Sco 80-81, 4Th Floor, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh. Chandigarh. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aaccc8021G अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 146, 147/Chd/2020 "नधा"रण वष" / A.Y.: 2014-15, 2015-16, The Acit, Vs M/S Csj Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Circle 2(1), C/O C.A. Ajay Kumar Jain, Chandigarh. Sco 80-81, 4Th Floor, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aaccc8021G अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ajay Jain, Ca Revenue By : Shri Manav Bansal, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 19.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.05.2025 Physical Hearing O R D E R

50C. 6. The ld. CIT DR, on the other hand, relied upon orders of Revenue Authorities. He submitted that Section 43CA is applicable because Sale Deed has been registered during the Accounting Year relevant to Financial Year 2014-15. The only benefit available to the assessee is sub-clause (3) and (4) of Section 43CA. In other words

ANAND SAWROOP,HIMACHAL PRADESH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , NAHAN

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

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

capital gains of Rs. 1,25,81,068/- was determined by the AO on sale of land by the assessee to M/s Himachal Pradesh Power Cooperation Ltd. (HPPCL) under Section 50C of the Act, which, on appeal, has been confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A). 4. Against the said findings and the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee

SH. HARWANT SINGH GREWAL,LUDHIANA vs. ITO, WARD-7(4), LUDHIANA

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 594/Chd/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Shri Harwant Singh Grewal, The Ito, B-Xxxiv, # 8913, Durga Puri, Vs Ward 7(4), Haibowal Kalan, Ludhiana. Ludhiana. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Adcpg7982Q अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl.Cit, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 08.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.06.2025 Physical Hearing O R D E R

2(14) of the Income Tax Act, because agricultural land otherwise not being treated as a ‘capital asset’ except it falls within the prescribed limit of ‘Municipality’ or ‘Municipal Corporation’ or within specified distance from these urban bodies. This aspect has not been looked into by both the parties. 6. The Long Term Capital Gain is required to be computed

MONICA BIBBLY SOOD,CHANDIGARH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(3), CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No. 78/Chd/2025 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Monica Bibbly Sood, The Ito, # 131, Sector 4, Vs Ward 1(3), Mdc, Panchkula. Chandigarh. "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Alsps4022P अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Harry Rikhy, Advocate Revenue By : Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. Cit Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 28.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.02.2026 Hybrid Hearing O R D E R

gains’ shall be computed by deducting from the full value of the consideration received or accruing as a result of transfer of the capital asset following amounts, namely; a) Expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively in connection with such transfer; b) The cost of acquisition of the asset and cost of any improvement thereto. 8. Section 50C

BHUP SINGH KOUNDAL,MANDI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , WARD SHIMLA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

capital gain assessable in the hands of the assessee. He further observed A.Y.2010-11 4 that assessee did not submit the details of acquisition cost etc. 7. Before us, it has been pointed out that circle rate for the purpose of charging Stamp Duty has been substantially reduced by the Collector, Mandi. Therefore, the deemed sale consideration is required

SH. RAM LAL,ROPAR vs. PR. C.I.T. -1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

50C of the Act while computing the capital gains. 8. As against the said order, the assessee filed an appeal to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal, by an order, dated 20.07.2018, allowed the appeal. It is against the said Order that the Revenue has come up with the above appeal. 9. It is seen from paragraph No.10

CSJ INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,INDUSTRIAL AREA PHASE vs. DCIT CIRCLE 2(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

Section 43CA talks about determination of full value of consideration as a result of transfer of an asset (other than a capital asset), being land or building or both for the purposes of computing the profits and gains from transfer of such asset. It envisages a situation where the consideration received or accruing as a result of the transfer