SHRI INAMUL HAQ,SAHARANPUR vs. ITO, SAHARANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2009-10 Shri Inamul Haq S/O Sh. Mohd. Vs. Income Tax Officer, Yamin, Vill.Megh Chhappar, Ward-2. Ambalaa Road, Saharanpur (U.P) Saharanpur Pan: Aaiph2840K (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 54F claimed by the assessee against the Long Term Capital Gain is as under: “a) That, in the year under consideration, the assessee has sold the immovable property of Rs.41,57,100.00, which has circle value at Rs.51,73,925.00, which has been added by the assessing officer U/s 50C and the same has not been challenged

JAGDISH PARSHAD JAIN,PANIPAT vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE KARNAL, KARNAL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2009-10 Shri Inamul Haq S/O Sh. Mohd. Vs. Income Tax Officer, Yamin, Vill.Megh Chhappar, Ward-2. Ambalaa Road, Saharanpur (U.P) Saharanpur Pan: Aaiph2840K (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 54F claimed by the assessee against the Long Term Capital Gain is as under: “a) That, in the year under consideration, the assessee has sold the immovable property of Rs.41,57,100.00, which has circle value at Rs.51,73,925.00, which has been added by the assessing officer U/s 50C and the same has not been challenged

PAWAN KUMAR HUF,DAYANAND NAGAR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX , GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: BEFORESHRI S RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ANDSHRI SUDHIR KUMAR (Judicial Member)

Capital Gain of Rs.43,83,009 during the financial year 2014-15 from the sale of 3,00,000 shares of M/s. Mahadushi International Trade Ltd. for a sale consideration of Rs.47,50,917 and the claim of exemption under Section 10(38) of the Act was done. Accordingly, National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) passed the assessment order under Section

AKASH JUNEJA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 60(1), NEW DELHI

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

gain. 4. On the facts and in the circumstance of the case and in law the CIT(A) was incorrect and unjustified in holding that the proviso to section 50C would not applicable to the assessee even though this proviso is applicable to the assessee. 5. On the facts and in the circumstance of the case

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(1), FARIDABAD vs. PRAHLAD, PALWAL

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed as above

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

144A of the Act. 1. Being the data of High Risk Billers received from the CBIC and the CASS Rationale highlighted to verify the genuineness of purchases, on the above CASS criteria. The FAO is directed to arrive the correctness of purchase and consider GST input credit after due consideration of the assesse's submissions, explanations and evidences produced