HARJINDER SINGH,DERABASSI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, CHANDIGARH

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

Bench: SHRI. RAJ PAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

disallowed the exemption under section 54B and made an addition of Rs.86,61,250/- as long-term capital gain. Further

SH. JASMER SINGH S/O SH. JEET SINGH,KURUKSHETRA vs. ITO, KURUKSHETRA

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2013-14

disallowance of exemption amounting to Rs. 5,69,96,450/- under section 54B on the ground that the investment in agricultural

SH. GURMEET SINGH S/O SH. GURBACHAN SINGH,KURUKSHETRA vs. ITO, KURUKSHETRA

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2013-14

disallowance of exemption amounting to Rs. 5,69,96,450/- under section 54B on the ground that the investment in agricultural

SH. GURDEEP SINGH S/O SH. GURBACHAN SINGH,KURUKSHETRA vs. ITO, KURUKSHETRA

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2013-14

disallowance of exemption amounting to Rs. 5,69,96,450/- under section 54B on the ground that the investment in agricultural

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)

sections are identical—ensuring that where capital gains are reinvested in qualifying assets, the benefit of exemption should be granted, even if such reinvestment occurs before formal execution of the transfer deed. This interpretation has received judicial recognition in multiple cases, including:  DCIT v Assa Singh in ITA No. 26/Asr/2015 dated 11.3.2016, ITAT Amritsar.  Ramesh Narhari Jakhadi

CEIGALL INDIA LIMITED, LUDHIANA,LUDHIANA vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

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

disallowances which an assessee feels aggrieved with. (* emphasis added by us). 20. Thus, in view of the above discussion the twin conditions as enunciated under section 263 cannot be said to have been fulfilled. Thus, the order passed by ld PCIT under section 263 failed in our legal scrutiny, hence order dated 21.02.2022 is set aside." 19. From the above

DCIT, MANDI GOBINDGARH vs. M/S C.S. CASTINGS PVT. LTD., MANDI GOBINDGARH

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

Bench: Ms. Diva Singh & Ms. Annapurna Guptaassessment Year : 2013-14

disallowance of deduction claimed u/s 54B made by the AO has been confirmed in appeal. 2. The relevant facts of the case are that during the year, the assessee has sold land measuring 6 kanal 19 marlas in Village Santemajra vide Vasika No. 553 dated 17.04.2012 jointly with Late Sh. Nika Singh, Sukhminder Singh, Dalbir Singh and Sh. Gurdev Singh

S.SURJIT SINGH,LUDHIANA vs. PR.CIT-1, LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt.Diva Singh & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

section 54B allows exemption of capital gains earned on sale of agricultural land which is reinvested in purchase of agricultural land. And as per his own admission this denial of claim of exemption of capital gains on account of investment in agricultural land was to be given effect in subsequent year i.e. assessment year 2018-19 when the amount parked

BAHADUR SINGH ,ZIRAKPUR vs. ITO WARD 3(5), CHANDIGARH

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

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

disallowance of Rs. 10.29,233 u/s 54B 5. Briefly the facts of the case are that is an agriculturist and not filed return for A.Y 2012-13. The AO had information that the assessee, who had one-half share in land measuring 29 Bigha 14 Biswa, had entered into an agreement with Sh. Baldev Chand Bansal, Director M/s BCL Homes