SH. JAI RAM,JAGADHARI vs. ITO, YAMUNANAGAR

In the result, both the appeal of different assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

54B of the Act. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noted that assessee had sold land for consideration of Rs. 1,92,01,875/- through Registered Sale Deed dated 20.03.2007. The sale consideration comprised of Rs. 68,000/- in cash, Rs. 16,77,625/- by cheque dated 15.03.2007 and Rs. 1,74,55,250/- by cheque from

ITO, W-4(3), CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. RACHNA ARORA, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

section 54 of Income 8 A.Y.2015-16 Tax Act, 1961, the amount of allowable claim of exemption u/s 54 should be calculated with reference to amount of investment in newly acquired residential house property and not the amount of capital gain on sale of existing house property. Since, the relief has been accorded, this gain on sale of existing house property

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

Housing Development Company Ltd. (THDC). Under the JDA, it was agreed that HASH and THDC viz., the developers, will undertake to develop 21.2 acres of land owned and registered in the name of the society. The agreed consideration was to be disbursed by THDC through HASH to each individual member of the society, and different amounts and flats were payable

SUBHASH,YAMUNANAGAR vs. ITO, WARD-3, YAMUNANAGAR, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT

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

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A) & One Of The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Relates To Non-Grant Of Deduction Under Section 54B & 54F Of The Act. 3. During The Course Of Appellate Proceedings, The Assessee Also Moved An Application Under Section 46A Of The Act Which Was Forwarded To The Ao & Remand

house amounting to Rs. 28,75,000/- basis fresh valuation report, certificate of Mayor, copy of electricity bill as well as the bank certificate. However, as far as claim of deduction under section 54B of the Act was concerned, no findings has been recorded by the Ld. CIT(A) and as against LTCG of Rs. 41,37,368/- determined

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

property within the stipulated time frame as so specified, the same has to be examined and looked at only on the expiry of the two years or three years from the date of transfer of the original asset and not in the year under consideration and our reference was drawn to the provisions of section

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

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

54B & Rs. 25,00,000/- under section 54F invested subsequent to the receipt of money against sale of agriculture land. 3. That Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts in adopting indexed cost of land valued on the basis of land value on 01/04/1981 at Rs. 14,03,194/-. 4. That Ld. CIT(A) has erred

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

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed for statistical purposes

Section 54B 14,787,100.00 (Registry Value) Details of Investment in Agriculture Land Dated ____ Registry Value _____________________ Stamp Papers ____________ Total 30.07.12 10,792,000.00 539,600.00 11,331,600.00 30.07.12 3,070,000.00 153,500.00 3,223,500.00 06.02.13 225.000.00 7.000.00 232.000.00 Total 14.087.000.00 700,100.00 14.787.100.00 Taxable Capital Gain Nil Share of Taxable Capital Gain

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

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed for statistical purposes

Section 54B 14,787,100.00 (Registry Value) Details of Investment in Agriculture Land Dated ____ Registry Value _____________________ Stamp Papers ____________ Total 30.07.12 10,792,000.00 539,600.00 11,331,600.00 30.07.12 3,070,000.00 153,500.00 3,223,500.00 06.02.13 225.000.00 7.000.00 232.000.00 Total 14.087.000.00 700,100.00 14.787.100.00 Taxable Capital Gain Nil Share of Taxable Capital Gain

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

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed for statistical purposes

Section 54B 14,787,100.00 (Registry Value) Details of Investment in Agriculture Land Dated ____ Registry Value _____________________ Stamp Papers ____________ Total 30.07.12 10,792,000.00 539,600.00 11,331,600.00 30.07.12 3,070,000.00 153,500.00 3,223,500.00 06.02.13 225.000.00 7.000.00 232.000.00 Total 14.087.000.00 700,100.00 14.787.100.00 Taxable Capital Gain Nil Share of Taxable Capital Gain

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

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed for statistical purposes

Section 54B 14,787,100.00 (Registry Value) Details of Investment in Agriculture Land Dated ____ Registry Value _____________________ Stamp Papers ____________ Total 30.07.12 10,792,000.00 539,600.00 11,331,600.00 30.07.12 3,070,000.00 153,500.00 3,223,500.00 06.02.13 225.000.00 7.000.00 232.000.00 Total 14.087.000.00 700,100.00 14.787.100.00 Taxable Capital Gain Nil Share of Taxable Capital Gain

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

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed for statistical purposes

Section 54B 14,787,100.00 (Registry Value) Details of Investment in Agriculture Land Dated ____ Registry Value _____________________ Stamp Papers ____________ Total 30.07.12 10,792,000.00 539,600.00 11,331,600.00 30.07.12 3,070,000.00 153,500.00 3,223,500.00 06.02.13 225.000.00 7.000.00 232.000.00 Total 14.087.000.00 700,100.00 14.787.100.00 Taxable Capital Gain Nil Share of Taxable Capital Gain

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

section 57.\nThe said provision reads thus:\n\"57. Deductions.-The income chargeable under the head 'Income from other\nsources' shall be computed after making the following deductions, namely :.\n(iv) in the case of income of the nature referred to in clause (viii) of sub-\nsection (2) of section 56, a deduction of a sum equal to fifty

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

section 56, a deduction of a sum equal to fifty per cent. of such\nincome and no deduction shall be allowed under any other clause of this\nsection.\"\n21. The Assessing Officer in I. T. A. No. 132 of 2018 where the assessee had\nreceived Rs.11,30,561 as interest income, held that the interest payment\nreceived on compensation/enhanced compensation

SH. SHEO RAM,JAGADHARI vs. ITO, YAMUNANAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly

Bench: Ms.Diva Singh & Ms.Annapurna Guptash. Sheo Ram, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Village Jaroda, Ward 3, Jagadhari. Yamunanagar. Pan: Fhcps9095D (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act. The Assessing Officer noted that the assessee had deposed before the Registering Authority that the possession of land had been handed over to the vendee. He, therefore, held that the claim of the assessee that there would be two different dates for effecting the transfer in the present case, was not tenable

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

54B and Rs. 6,38,76,895/- u/s 54F against Long Term Capital Gain. 3. As per provisions of Section 54F of the IT Act, If the cost of the new house is not less than the net consideration in respect of the capital asset transferred, the entire capital gain arising from the transfer will be exempt from

BALVINDER SINGH,FATEHABAD vs. ITO WARD-1, FATEHABAD

section 2(24)\n28A, as under:\n(iii) agricultural land55 in India, not being land situate-\n(a) in any area which is comprised within the jurisdiction of a\nmunicipality55 (whether known as a municipality, municipal\ncorporation, notified area committee, town area committee, town\ncommittee, or by any other name) or a cantonment board and\nwhich has a population56

BISHAN CHAND,CHANDIGARH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 5 (5), CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

section 56, a deduction of a sum equal to fifty per cent. of such\nincome and no deduction shall be allowed under any other clause of this\nsection.\"\n21. The Assessing Officer in I. T. A. No. 132 of 2018 where the assessee had\nreceived Rs.11,30,561 as interest income, held that the interest payment\nreceived on compensation/enhanced compensation