SH. SATPAL GOSAIN,LUDHIANA vs. ACIT, LUDHIANA

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

74, 90, 110, 136, 191, 192, 253, 254, 278 and 398 of 2014 vide order dated 22.07.2015 has held as under: "As per the order of the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court " it was submitted by learned counsel for the assessee-appellant that whatever amount was received from the developer, capital gains tax has already been paid on that

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

section 54 since the assessee did not attend and comply with the show case notice issued by the AO on 26/12 for 28/12. 6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the assessing officer was incorrect and unjustified in rejecting the claim of the assessee for exemption of long term capital gain without providing

DESH MITTER GAIND,PANCHKULA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, PANCHKULA, PANCHKULA, HARYANA

Bench: This Tribunal. The Assessee Is Aggrieved By The Order Of Cit(A) Bearing No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-

section 48. be deemed to be the full value of the consideration received or accruing as a result of such transfer. " In view of the above, the calculation of short term capital gain u/s 48 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is as under:- 1. Sale price (Assessed by Stamp Valuation Authority) 3,16,20,230/- Less: Sale Expenses

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

Capital gains" 48. Against the abovesaid decision the SLP filed by the assessee was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court was reported in [2021] 126 taxmann.com 105 (SC)/[2021] 279 Taxman 74 (SC)/[2.. 49. Similarly the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT Vs. Inderjit

BALBIR KUMAR HUF,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO , CHANDIGARH

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

Capital gains" 48. Against the abovesaid decision the SLP filed by the assessee was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court was reported in [2021] 126 taxmann.com 105 (SC)/[2021] 279 Taxman 74 (SC)/[2.. 49. Similarly the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT Vs. Inderjit

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

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

Capital gains" 48. Against the abovesaid decision the SLP filed by the assessee was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court was reported in [2021] 126 taxmann.com 105 (SC)/[2021] 279 Taxman 74 (SC)/[2.. 49. Similarly the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT Vs. Inderjit

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

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

Capital gains" 48. Against the abovesaid decision the SLP filed by the assessee was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court was reported in [2021] 126 taxmann.com 105 (SC)/[2021] 279 Taxman 74 (SC)/[2.. 49. Similarly the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT Vs. Inderjit

INCOME TAX OFFICER, FATEHABAD vs. MAHESH NAGPAL, FATEHABAD

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

Capital gains" 48. Against the abovesaid decision the SLP filed by the assessee was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court was reported in [2021] 126 taxmann.com 105 (SC)/[2021] 279 Taxman 74 (SC)/[2.. 49. Similarly the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT Vs. Inderjit

RANJIT SINGH,PANCHKULA vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR, CPC DEPARTMENT

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

Capital gains" 48. Against the abovesaid decision the SLP filed by the assessee was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court was reported in [2021] 126 taxmann.com 105 (SC)/[2021] 279 Taxman 74 (SC)/[2.. 49. Similarly the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT Vs. Inderjit

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

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

Capital gains" 48. Against the abovesaid decision the SLP filed by the assessee was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court was reported in [2021] 126 taxmann.com 105 (SC)/[2021] 279 Taxman 74 (SC)/[2.. 49. Similarly the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT Vs. Inderjit

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

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

Capital gains" 48. Against the abovesaid decision the SLP filed by the assessee was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court was reported in [2021] 126 taxmann.com 105 (SC)/[2021] 279 Taxman 74 (SC)/[2.. 49. Similarly the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT Vs. Inderjit

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

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

Capital gains" 48. Against the abovesaid decision the SLP filed by the assessee was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court was reported in [2021] 126 taxmann.com 105 (SC)/[2021] 279 Taxman 74 (SC)/[2.. 49. Similarly the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT Vs. Inderjit

KESHAV DUTT SHREEDHAR,SHIMLA vs. DCIT, SHIMLA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Section 54(1) would not have allowed adjustment and/or exemption in respect of property purchased one year prior to the transfer, which gave rise to the capital gain or may be in the alternative have expressly made the exemption in case of prior purchase, subject to purchase from any advance that might have been received for the transfer

KAKA SINGH ALIAS GULJAR SINGH,PATIALA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , PATIALA

Capital gains\"\n41\n\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

NARENDER KAUR,KURUKSHETRA, HARYANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1 , KURUKSHETRA

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

SH. AJIT SINGH,PINJORE vs. ITO, WARD-1, PANCHKULA

Capital gains\"\n41\n48.\nAgainst 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

BALJIT SINGH,AMBALA CITY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, AMBALA, AMBALA

Capital gains\".\n41\n48.\nAgainst 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

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(5), CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH vs. AVTAR SINGH, VILLAGE- KAIMBWALA

Capital gains\"\n41\n48.\nAgainst 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