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

68,96,060/- made by Assessing Officer as long term capital gain on sale of agriculture land measuring 109 Kanal 7.5 marla (50% share) for a consideration of Rs. 3,75,97,656/- by holding the transfer of land in the year under consideration despite the fact that only 10% of the sale consideration was received during the year

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)

68,558 Amount invested in purchase of (4) Rs 2,83,06,710 agricultural land and allowable as deduction u/s 54B Amount invested in 54F (point 3) (5) Rs 38,18,260 Amount Eligible for Exemption (6) (3) ∗(5) Rs 37,14,941 u/s 54F (1) Total Exemption (7) (4)+(6) Rs 3,20,21,651 Net Long Term Capital

ACIT, INTL. TAXATION, CIRCLE, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. MANJIT SINGH BAIDWAN, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri R.L Negiआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1245/Chd/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 The Acit, Sh. Manjit Singh Baidwan, बनाम (International Taxation), # 3151, Sector 27-D, Chandigarh Chandigarh

68 83/Mum/2014 which also relied on the aforesaid decision. Accordingly, in the peculiar facts and circumstance of the present case which have been set out herein above considering the position of law as also discussed in detail in the earlier portion of this order, we find that in the peculiar facts of the present case the claim of the assessee

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

68,750/- on 14.08.2014 and earned long Term Capital Gain of Rs. 12,55,08,350/-/- claiming deduction of Rs. ITA No. 56-Chd-2021 Sh. Daljit Singh Bassi, Ranjit Nagar 3 6,16,31,455/- u/s 54B and Rs. 6,38,76,895/- u/s 54F against Long Term Capital Gain. 3. As per provisions of Section

SH. SIMERDEEP GREWAL,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, C-7, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg

68,000/-. Now the question before the Bench is as to whether the relief / exemption u/s 54F is to be allowed as per the date of investment / payment of installment or is to be allowed as per the total cost of the new house purchased. As per the facts on the file, though the assessee started paying installment towards

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

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

68,39,512/- Less : 1. Loan returned to Punjab Gramin Bank Mohali taken for improvement of land 29-01-2013. Rs-1,01,169/- 2. Investment U/s 54 (Residential Property) Rs- 35,95,440/- 3. Share of Investment in Agricultural land purchased as per copy of purchased deed Enclosed Rs. 24,35,850/- Balance Amount

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

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

68,39,512/- Less : 1. Loan returned to Punjab Gramin Bank Mohali taken for improvement of land 29-01-2013. Rs-1,01,169/- 2. Investment U/s 54 (Residential Property) Rs- 35,95,440/- 3. Share of Investment in Agricultural land purchased as per copy of purchased deed Enclosed Rs. 24,35,850/- Balance Amount

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

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

68,39,512/- Less : 1. Loan returned to Punjab Gramin Bank Mohali taken for improvement of land 29-01-2013. Rs-1,01,169/- 2. Investment U/s 54 (Residential Property) Rs- 35,95,440/- 3. Share of Investment in Agricultural land purchased as per copy of purchased deed Enclosed Rs. 24,35,850/- Balance Amount

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

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

68,39,512/- Less : 1. Loan returned to Punjab Gramin Bank Mohali taken for improvement of land 29-01-2013. Rs-1,01,169/- 2. Investment U/s 54 (Residential Property) Rs- 35,95,440/- 3. Share of Investment in Agricultural land purchased as per copy of purchased deed Enclosed Rs. 24,35,850/- Balance Amount

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

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

68,39,512/- Less : 1. Loan returned to Punjab Gramin Bank Mohali taken for improvement of land 29-01-2013. Rs-1,01,169/- 2. Investment U/s 54 (Residential Property) Rs- 35,95,440/- 3. Share of Investment in Agricultural land purchased as per copy of purchased deed Enclosed Rs. 24,35,850/- Balance Amount

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

68,276/-. 6. The Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeal upholding the order passed by the Assessing Officer. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee filed appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), which was also dismissed by the ITAT. 7. The assessee further preferred appeal before the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court. The Hon'ble High Court vide order

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

68,276/-. 6. The Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeal upholding the order passed by the Assessing Officer. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee filed appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), which was also dismissed by the ITAT. 7. The assessee further preferred appeal before the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court. The Hon'ble High Court vide order

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

section 54B and 54F alongwith deduction on account of commission and considering fair market value of the property. These grounds have become infructuous in view of the finding above that no capital gain accrued or arises in assessment year under appeal. These issues may be considered by both the parties in the year when capital gain would arise. These

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

section 54B and 54F alongwith deduction on account of commission and considering fair market value of the property. These grounds have become infructuous in view of the finding above that no capital gain accrued or arises in assessment year under appeal. These issues may be considered by both the parties in the year when capital gain would arise. These

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

68,276/-, assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld. CIT (Appeals) who has dismissed the appeal. The appeal to the ITAT also did not bring any relief to the assessee. A.Y.2008-09 17 Though Hon'ble High Court has allowed the appeal of the assessee and revenue carried the matter in appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court

SHRI ABHIMANYU GUPTA,PATIALA vs. PR. CIT, PATIALA

Bench: Ms. Diva Singh & Ms. Annapurna Guptaassessment Year: 2012-13

68,500/-. The AO has not verified the exemption claimed u/s 54F as to whether all the formalities were completed on transfer of capital assets i.e. shares which not to be charged to tax in case of investment in residential house. (iv) From the perusal of the information on record with regard to the household expenses, it has been noticed

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

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