ARUN DWIVEDI,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-9(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 45 of the Act during the relevant period is\nreproduced as under:-\nCapital gains.\n8945. [(1)] Any profits or gains arising from the transfer of a capital\nasset effected in the previous year shall, save as otherwise provided in\nsections 2[***] [54, 54B

BRAHAM PRAKASH,GURGAON vs. ITO WARD - 1(3), GURGAON

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year: 2011-12

54B(1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), where the capital gain arises from the transfer of a capital

ARUNA CHAUDHARY,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-26, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

gains arising on of the sale of an agricultural land which is invested in another land which is used for agricultural purposes. The relevant portion of section 54B is reproduced as under: "54B (1) [Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), where the capital

PREET SINGH,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 32(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

gain of Rs.46,51,412/- was worked out. In the return, the assessee had claimed deduction u/s 54B of the Act and thus reported ‘Nil’ LTCG. 2.2 In terms of section 54B, the assessee is required to utilize the capital

ANUBHAV KAPOOR,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - 2(1)(1), GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2016-17]

Capital Gain (LTCG) at Rs.1,02,91,568/- as against Rs.4,88,868/- offered by the assessee. The AO noted that this case was selected for scrutiny through CASS under ‘limited scrutiny’ to examine the following issue:- (i) Large deduction claim u/s 54B, 54C, 54D, 54G, 54GA (schedule CG of ITR) 3.1. The AO noted that during the year under

ACIT CIRCLE-36(1), NEW DELHI vs. HIMANSHU GARG, NEW DELHI

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar

section.” 3. In CO No. 112/Del/2022, following grounds have been raised by the assessee: “1. That the Id. CIT(Appeals) has erred in not allowing the additional ground of appeal taken by the Respondent wherein he has made a fresh claim of exemption also allowable u/s 54B of the Act with reference to Long Term Capital Gains

ANIL BHARDWAJ,ZAMBIA vs. DCIT-ACIT-INT-TAX GURGAON, GURGAON

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.I.T.A. No. 1250/Del/2024 (A.Y 2020-21) Anil Bhardwaj Dcit/Acit 5994, Benakale Road, P. O Vs. International Tax, Box No. 31776, Northmead, Office Of Acit-Dcit Int- Near Rhodes Park School, Tax, Gurgaon Lusaka-10101, Zambia, Ny (Respondent) Pan No. Anlpb2321F (Appellant)

Capital Gain (‘STCG’ for short) and making disallowances of the exemption available u/s 54F of the Act by the Revenue Authorities is totally unwarranted and the same has been done without considering valuation report of Government approved valuer and contrary to the CBDT Circular on jewellery. The Ld. Counsel further submitted that the said disallowance has been made without referring

KUSUM SAHGAL,GURUGRAM vs. ACIT,CIRCLE-19(2), DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2016-17 Kusum Sahgal, Through Lr Shri Vs. Acit, Circle-19(2), Viney Sagar Sahgal, New Delhi Mg-2002, The Magnolias, Golf Course Road Dlf Phase-V, Gurugram, 122 002 Haryana Pan :Aatps3766J (Appellant) (Respondent)

capital gains (Schedule CG of ITR); (ii) Large deduction claimed u/s 54B,54C,54D,54G, 54GA (Schedule CG of ITR) and (iii) Large balance in foreign bank account (Schedule FA of ITR). Notice under Section

KAMLESH KHANNA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-40(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla

capital gains and income from other sources. The assessee e-filed his return of income for the A.Y under consideration declaring income of Rs. 24,51,630/- on 30.03.2016 which was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, this case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS to examine (i) Large investment in property as compared to total income

SHYAM SUNDER ,GURURGAM vs. ITO ( CIRCLE 4(1) , GURGRAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

capital gains. 3.3 Thereafter, the assessee claimed deduction under sections 54F and 54B on the ground that the sale proceeds

RAVINDER KUMAR,MEERUT CANTT. vs. ITO, WARD-2(2), MEERUT

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Sh. Shamim Yahya & Shri Kul Bharatravinder Kumar Vs. Ito C/O. M/S. Kartar Singh & Ward – 2(2) Co., 86, Bank Street, Meerut Meerut Uttar Prades – 250 001 Pan No. Amcpk 8771 E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri R. P. Narang, Adv. Revenue By Shri Baldev Singh Negi, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 02.11.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 08.11.2023

Capital Gain (LTCG) came to Rs.12,78,456/-. Assessee claimed that he has purchased land and under section 54B, the Long

KARTAR SINGH,ROHTAK vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 42(1), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 3268/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Kartar Singh, Vs Acit, C/O S.K. Bansal, Ca, Circle-42(1), 101, First Floor, Kochar Market, New Delhi-11 Jhajjar Road, Opp. Khanu Mandi, Rohtak, Haryana-12001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Cskps5940K Assessee By : None Revenue By : Sh. Amit Katoch, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 19.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 05.09.2023 Order Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar:

54B and 54F and also ignoring the fact that income escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147 here means long term capital gain

SANJAY SHARMA,GREATER NOIDA vs. ACIT, NOIDA

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2012-13] Sanjay Sharma, Vs Acit, Flat 4063, Ats Paradiso, Noida. Sec-Chi-04, Greater Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh-201308. Pan-Amkps9185L Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Jai Bhagwan Sharma, Ca Respondent By Shri Sanjay Nargas, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 15.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 27.02.2023 Order Per Kul Bharat, Jm : The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee For The Assessment Year 2012-13 Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (“Nfac”), Delhi Dated 23.12.2021. 2. The Assessee Has Raised Following Ground Of Appeal:- 1. “In The Instant Case The Appellant Assessee While Submitting The Income Tax Return For The Financial Year Ended On 31-03-2012 (Relevant To The Asst. Year 2012-13) Inadvertently Forgotten To Submit The Details For Claiming Exemption U/S. 54 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 & Did Not Mentioned The Details Of Sale Of Residential House Property & Utilization Of Long-Term Capital Gain Arising Out Of Sale Of Residential House Property In The Purchase Of Another/New Residential House Property. Consequently, Income Demand Of Rs. 5,61,107/- Was Raised Against The Appellant Assessee Followed By The Penalty Proceedings U/S. 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961

section 54 of Act, which was legally available to the Assessee. (Kindly refer Page no.77 to 81). And In the matter of Kewal Krishan Jain vs. CIT(2013) the Hon'ble Punjab Haryana High Court has given relief to the Assessee who had not furnished the details of capital gain on sale of Agriculture Land in his original return

MEENU ARYA,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO,WARD-3(4), HAPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri C.M. Gargmeenu Arya, Vs. Ito, Ch. No. 206-207, Ansal Satyam Ward-3(4), Rdc, Rajnagar, Ghaziabad Hapur (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Abcpa7903P

section 54B of the Act and thus chargeable to long term capital gain. The ld Sr. DR submitted that orders

SUBRAMANIAN SWAMINATHAN,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRCLE-3(1)(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

capital gains scheme. 3. Because without prejudice to the above, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts by disallowing the expenses to the tune of Rs. 2,83,473/- incurred in lieu of purchase of the new residential unit, more so, when all evidence were duly submitted before the Authorities below. 3.1.Because the registration expenses were much

ACHAL KUMAR MALHOTRA ,HARYANA vs. PR. CIT , HARYANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri N.K. Choudhry

capital gain and claimed exemption under Section 54B of the Act. Notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued

JUGENDRA,KHURJA vs. ITO, WARD- 3(2), BULANDSHAHR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaassessment Year: 2009-10

section 2(14) of the Act, the departmental authorities have held that the land sold being an industrial land is subject to capital gain. It is a fact on record that the land sold, which is subjected to capital gain, is a jointly owned property by three co-owners and each having 1/3rd share in the property. Even, the Assessing

HOSHIYARI,REWARI vs. ITO , WARD-1, REWARI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed”

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2013-14 Hoshiyari C/O Anu Jain & Vs. Income Tax Officer, Company, 272 R, First Floor, Ward-1, Near Palika Complex, Model Rewari. Town, Rewari (Haryana) Pin: 123 401 Pan :Bmdpd2079Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 54B and 54F, amount not utilized for the purchase of new asset up to the date of filing of return u/s 139, should have been, deposited in bank in capital gain