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

capital gain in assessment year 2009-10 in accordance with law, if so advised. 19. In the result, ground No. 1 of appeal of the assessee is allowed. 20. In view of the above findings, there is no need to decide the remaining grounds of appeal with regard to claiming exemption under section 54B and 54F

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

capital gain account scheme on 17.09.2011 after due date of filing of return of income on 31.07.2011 under section 139(1). On the other hand the counsel of the assessee submitted that exemption may be allowed in accordance with Section 54F

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

54F on the ground that he did not deposit the said amount in capital gains account scheme before the due date prescribed under Section 139(1

SIKANDER SINGH MALUKA,MOHALI vs. ITO, MOHALI

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptathe I.T.O., Vs. Sh.Sikandar Singh Maluka, Ward 5(1), # 1370, Sector 40-B, Chandigarh. Chandigarh Pan: Abzpm7206N & Sh.Sikandar Singh Maluka, Vs. The I.T.O., # 1370, Sector 40-B, Ward 5(2), Chandigarh. Chandigarh Pan: Abzpm7206N

1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding that the parties had agreed for pro-rata transfer of land whereas by virtue of executing the Joint Development Agreement (JDA) read with possession letter and duly registered irrevocable special power of attorney, there was a grant

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

SH. JASWINDER SINGH LOTA,MOHALI vs. DY. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Diva Singh & Shri B.R.R.Kumarassessment Year: 2008-09

gain in a residential house. It is only after the amendment to section 54F of the Income-tax Act by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2014, which came into effect with effect from 1.4.2015 that the assessee should invest the sale proceeds arising out of sale of capital asset in a residential house situated in India within the stipulated period

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

ITO, LUDHIANA vs. SH. CHARANJIT SINGH ATWAL, LUDHIANA

In the result, the penalty of the assessee is hereby allowed and that of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year : 2007-08 Sh. Charanjit Singh Atwal, Vs. The Ito, Ward 6(1), 484-A, Model Town Extension, Ludhiana Ludhiana

54F of the Act would not survive any longer and has been rendered academic. 7. The Tribunal and the authorities below were not right in holding the assessee-appellant to be liable to capital gains tax in respect of remaining land measuring 13.5 acres for which no consideration had been received and which stood cancelled and incapable of performance

SH. CHARANJIT SINGH ATWAL,LUDHIANA vs. ITO, LUDHIANA

In the result, the penalty of the assessee is hereby allowed and that of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year : 2007-08 Sh. Charanjit Singh Atwal, Vs. The Ito, Ward 6(1), 484-A, Model Town Extension, Ludhiana Ludhiana

54F of the Act would not survive any longer and has been rendered academic. 7. The Tribunal and the authorities below were not right in holding the assessee-appellant to be liable to capital gains tax in respect of remaining land measuring 13.5 acres for which no consideration had been received and which stood cancelled and incapable of performance

KESHAV DUTT SHREEDHAR,SHIMLA vs. DCIT, SHIMLA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

54F. The law, it was argued, does not ITA 8 /CHD/2016 A.Y. 2008-09 Page 9 of 15 insist that there should be a live link between the amount of capital gain and the cost of the new asset. This position of law, it was his submission, has been addressed in various decisions as argued. In the facts of this

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

SH. JAI PAL,JAGADHRI vs. ITO, W-3, YAMUNANAGAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2007-08

capital gain 39 in assessment year 2009-10 in accordance with law, if so advised. 19. In the result, ground No. 1 of appeal of the assessee is allowed. 20. In view of the above findings, there is no need to decide the remaining grounds of appeal with regard to claiming exemption under section 54B and 54F

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