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

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)

54B,54C,54D,54G, 54GA (Schedule CG of ITR) and (iii) Large balance in foreign bank account (Schedule FA of ITR). Notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was issued on 13/07/2017 and served through email as well as speed post. Ld. Authorized Representative (A/R) of the assessee Sh. Vinay Malik, CA filed his Authorization to represent the case

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

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)

1 is general in nature which requires no adjudication. 9. Ground No. 2 is regarding addition made on account of treating Rs. 20,10,008/- as short term capital gain. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the treatment of Long Term Capital Gain (‘LTCG’ for short) on jewellery as Short Term Capital Gain (‘STCG’ for short) and making

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

1), New Delhi. TAN/PAN: ANBPS6088A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri Satyen Sethi Adv Shri AT Panda Adv Respondent by: Shri Anil Kumar Sharma, Sr.DR Date of hearing: 25 08 2022 Date of pronouncement: 22 09 2022 O R D E R PER PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, A.M.: The captioned appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order

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]

1) of the Act; (6) the express term used under section 54(2) referred to investment made prior to filing of "return of income" under section 139, without any suffix thereto, so as to hold that even if the "return" had been filed belatedly, under section 139(4) of the Act, no such benefit could have been denied

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) vs. AIPECCS SOCIETY

Capital gains" and claims that the loss or any part thereof should be carried forward under sub-section (1) of section 72, or sub-section (2) of section 73, or sub-section (1) [or sub-section (3)] of section 74, [or sub- section (3) of section 74A], he may furnish, within the time allowed under sub-section (1), a return

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)

54B and 54F and reducing the indexed cost of acquisition, the Assessing Officer recomputed the long-term capital gain at Rs.1,13,56,916/-. The said amount was added to the returned income, and the total assessed income was determined accordingly. The Assessing Officer also initiated penalty proceedings separately under section 271(1

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:

gain on an asset being land acquired in a mode specified u/s 49(1) of I.T. Act in which case cost of acquisition in the hands of last previous owner is to be taken as per Explanation to section 49(1). But neither the last previous owner nor the date of acquisition in the hands of last previous owner

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 is to be exempt. However, the AO denied the same as he noted that the said land is purchased in the wife’s name. Hence, the AO denied the claim of deduction under section 54B of the Act. 4. Against the above order, assessee appealed before the CIT(A). The learned CIT(A) referred to several case laws

PARVEJ,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), GHAZIABAD

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

Bench: Shri C.M. Gargassessment Year: 2009-10 Parvej, Vs. Ito, C/O M/S Sanjeev Anand & Ward-2(1), Associates, Ghaziabad. 77-Navyug Market, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh. Pan: Dkkpp4804A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Somil Agarwal & Shri Deepesh Garg, Advocates Revenue By : Shri Mithalesh Km. Pandey, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 15.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.10.2022 Order

54B and 54F is bad in law and against the facts and circumstances of the case. 6. That the appellant craves the leave to add, modify, amend or delete any of the grounds of appeal at the time of hearing and all the above grounds are without prejudice to each other.” 3. The ld. Counsel of the assessee, drawing

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 to the assessee. Exemption under Section 54B of the Act was not allowed to the assessee on the ground that the land was not purchased by the assessee in his own name. The CIT(A) as well as the Tribunal

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

54B. 54C, 54D, 54G & 54GA” as would be evident from the Assessment Order (Para 2, Page 1 of the Assessment Order) 5. During scrutiny proceedings, the said claim of deduction under section 54F, had been examined in detail and duly allowed. However, only the indexed cost of acquisition of Rs. 10,25,801/- & the expense

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1 vs. M/S ANSAL PROPERTIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED

1) Any profits or gains arising from the transfer of a capital asset effected in the previous year shall, save as otherwise provided in sections 54, 54B

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

1)(c) of the Income Tax Act,1961. (Kindly refer Assessment order of Ld. ACIT, Circ1e-3, Noida Page No. 60 To 63). Having, aggrieved with the Assessment order, an appeal was moved by the Appellant Assessee before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- Noida-I (Kindly refer Form No. 35 Page No.68 to 70), which also could not yield