SH. MAHESH CHUGH,CHANDIGARH vs. PR.CIT-2, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Capital Gains; and iii) Cost of the new asset In the present case these are as under: i) 2,96,25,000/- ii) 2,00,87,010/- iii) 2,17,35,000/- Considering the above figures and by applying the formulae as provided in clause (b) of sub section (1) of Section 54F

DEVI DAYAL,KAITHAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 , KAITHAL

In the result, appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 899/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09 Shri Devi Dayal, Vs The Ito, Pundri Anaj Mandi, Ward – 1, Kaithal-Haryana 136026. Kaithal. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aajpd5851H अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, Ca & Ms. Shruti Khandelwal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Manav Bansal, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 30.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.09.2025

1) Any profits or gains arising from the transfer of a capital asset effected in the previous year shall, save as otherwise provided in sections 54, 54B, 54D, 54E, 54EA, 54EB, 54F

SHRI MOHAN LAL GUPTA,SHIMLA vs. PR.CIT-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

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

Section 54F amounting to Rs. 37,00,000/-, the Long Term Capital Gains were determined at Rs. 1,57,62,283/- and after

ACIT, CIRCLE, SHIMLA vs. SHRI VINOD SHARMA, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Dr Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1449/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 The Acit, Vs. Shri Vinod Sharma, बनाम B-1/3, Circle, Safdarjang Enclave, Shimla New Delhi 110029 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Abkps1560N अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent (Hybrid Mode ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Sh. Vishal Mohan, Sr. Advocate With Shri Ahninav Bazwaria, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Smt. Kusum Bansal, Cit Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 10.06.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09.07.2024

54F on the capital gains which were invested on 04.04.2014. The whole dispute revolves around whether the transactions entered into by the appellant is "purchase of house" or "construction of a house". To decide the issue at hand, it is pertinent to take note of the documentary evidence on record. The offer letter issued by Jaypee Greens and the amount

SH. RAMINDER SINGH,MOHALI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(2), MOHALI

The appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Smt.Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1270/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16

section 50C are not applicable in the present case. The capital gains therefore remain at that returned by the assessee and there remains no question of allowing any increased deduction/exemption u/s 54F of the Act ,except to the extent actually invested in new asset and allowable as per law. 14. Be that as it may,the issue stands covered

SH. DALJIT SINGH BASSI,RANJIT NAGAR vs. PR.CIT-1, CHANDIGARH

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 56/Chd/2021 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16

Capital Gain already availed u/s 54B was not given resulting in excess claim u/s 54F 5. Thus from the above, it is sufficiently clear that the allowable deduction u/s 54F has been wrongly worked out and allowed resulting in loss of revenue. 6. In view of the facts stated above, the assessment framed

PREM SINGH,CHAMBA vs. ACIT CIRCLE PALAMPUR, PALAMPUR

In the result, the appeal for AY 2017-18 stands partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 946/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 947/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shri Prem Singh Dcit Circle, Palampur बनाम/ The Palace. Chamba Himachal Pradesh - 176061 Vs. Himachal Pradesh – 176310 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aampr-8876-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ajay Jain (Ca) – Ld. Ar Revenue By : Shri Bharat Bhushan Garg (Cit) (Virtual) - Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13-11-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13-01-2026 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. The Assessee Is In Further Appeals Before Us For Assessment Years (Ay) 2015-16 & 2017-18 Which Arises Out Of Separate Orders Of Learned First Appellate Authority. First, We Take Up Appeal For Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16 Which Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac [Cit(A)] Dated 22-07-2025 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S 143(3) Of The Act On 29-12-2017. The Assessee Is Aggrieved By Computation Of Capital

1. On the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law the assessing officer was incorrect and unjustified in: i) Disallowing indexed cost of construction of Rs.54,07,089 on the house sold, while computing capital gain, on the basis of estimating and also by ignoring the valuation report. ii) Rejecting the valuation report which certified and admitted

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)

1,00,00,000/- respectively.. The assessee declared this sale consideration in his ITR for AY 2015-16 under capital gains, claiming deductions under Sections 54B and 54F

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 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 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 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 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

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

capital gain by Rs. 1,20,24,000/- on sale of land measuring 2 Kanals (1200 square yards) to Sh. Harish Singla, Joshi Nagar, Haibowal Kalan, Ludhiana and Sh. Bablesh Kumar, Deep Nagar, Ludhiana. Therefore an addition of Rs. 1,20,24,000/- is made in the total income of the assessee. B. Issue of deduction under section 54F

SHEO RAM,YAMUNA NAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-4 , YAMUNA NAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahay

Section 148 dated 13.09.2012. The AO has thereafter passed an assessment order on 30.03.2014 whereby LTCG liability was determined in the hands of the assessee. Such gain was determined at Rs.3,68,96,060/-. 3. Dissatisfied with the assessment order, assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A) and ultimately it travelled upto the Tribunal vide

AMARJIT SINGH MARWAHA ,SHIMLA vs. ITO, NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadavआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1379/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Shri Amarjit Singh Marwaha, The Ito, Cottage No.1, Sadhora, Vs Ward-1, Mashobra, Baldeyan, Shimla. Shimla. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aeepm0161N अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Vishal Mohan Sr.Advocate, With Shri Abhinav Bijwaria, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. Cit Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 21.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.01.2026

54F. The ld. AO has allowed this claim of the assessee of Rs.12,05,148/-. The AO, thereafter, worked out the balance amount at Rs.16,59,852/- He has made addition of this amount. The case of the ld. counsel for the assessee is that since this amount was deposited in a Long Term Capital Gain account

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.

section and deny the capital gains, but during the period under consideration, the Assessee is very much entitled to make deposits of the sale proceedings in the capital gains account and claim deduction u/s 54F(4) of the Act. Thus, we do not find any reason to interfere in the findings given by the Ld. CIT(A) on this issue

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

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Krinwant Sahay

Section 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act, as assessee did not attend the proceedings despite notice of service. The AO from perusal of bank statement noticed that there are credit entries in Joint Bank Account maintained by Sh. Sant Singh (Assessee), along with his mother Smt. Ajaib Kaur amounting to Rs. 5,54,05,000/-, during the Financial Year

SH. SANDEEP BHARGAVA (HUF),CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, C-1(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sanjay Gargआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.43/Chd/2019 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13

1, Chandigarh in appeal No. 10098/17-18 dated 20.11.2018 is contrary to law and facts of the case. ITA No. 43-Cdh-2019 Shri Sandeep Bhargava ('HUF'), Chandigarh 2 2. That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) gravelly erred in upholding the order passed by the Ld. Assessing Officer u/s 154 of the Income