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

54B of the Income Tax Act. 4.1 That the ld. CIT (A) has wrongly invoked the powers u/s 251 of the Act to enhance the assessment without appreciating the fact that the said section cannot be pressed to substitute the view/decision of the assessing officer. 4.2 That the ld. CIT (A) has wrongly disallowed

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

disallowance of Rs.46,51,412/- with reference to Section 54B of the Act. The assessee also filed ‘additional ground’ to the effect

PHOOL SINGH,HARYANA vs. ITO WARD-3(2), GURGAON

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarphool Singh Vs. Ito Plot No.2394 (Basement), Ward – 3(2) Sector – 46, Gurgaon Gurgaon, Haryana – 122 002 Pan : Eurps 4895 E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. & Shri Somil Agarwal, Adv. Respondent By Shri Rajesh Dhanesta, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing 08.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 18.12.2024 O R D E R Per Vimal Kumar, Jm:

disallowance of exemption under section 54B of the Act amounting to Rs.3,08,33,650/-, the details of purchase of land

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

54B of the Act. 11. We may make a brief reference to the decision relied upon by counsel for the assessee. Learned counsel mainly relied upon the decision in V. Natarajan [2006] 287 ITR 271 (Mad), with reference to section 54 of the Act. 12. The Madras High Court in V. Natarajan's case [2006] 287 ITR 271 was dealing

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)

section 54B is allowable only when the new agricultural land is purchased in the name of the assessee himself and not in the name of a third person, including spouse or children. Consequently, the exemption claimed in respect of such jointly purchased properties was disallowed

ASHOK KUMAR,DELHI vs. ITO,WARD-30(2), DELHI

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year : 2012-13 Shri Ashok Kumar, Vs. Ito, 74, Uday Park, Ward 30(2), New Delhi – 110 048. New Delhi. Pan: Abcpk7690K

disallowance of exemption under section 54B as enhanced by the CIT(A). AO not dealt with the issue of exemption

RAMVIR YADAV,GURGAON vs. ITO WARD- 3(1), DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for\nstatistical purposes

Section 54B for purchasing another agricultural land. The Assessing Officer disallowed the deduction, stating that the sold land was not agricultural

SH. KARAMVIR,GURGAON vs. ITO, GURGAON

Appeal is allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2012-13 Vs. Income Tax Officer, Sh. Karamvir, C/O-Kunal Aggarwal & Ward-2(2), Associates, 226, Jmd Gurgaon Megapolis, 2Nd Floor, Sector-48, Sohna Road, Gurgaon Pan: Aempv4835Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Rajat Chaudhary, Adv. Department By Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. Dr

disallowed the assessee’s section 54B deduction. Both the learned lower authorities have added long-term capital gains in the assessee

SHRI RATTAN SINGH,PANIPAT vs. ITO, PANIPAT

In the result, the appeal of the appellant is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri M. Balaganeshrattan Singh, Vs. Ito, S/O. Shri Tek Chand, Ward-2, Panipat Village-Nizampur, Panipat (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aespc4005K Assessee By : None Revenue By: Shri Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 02/04/2024 Date Of Pronouncement /04/2024

disallowing our request to admit additional evidence under rule 46A for agriculture land purchased through Iqrarnama's dated 14/03/2005 for Rs. 1,75,20,000/- at Garhi Multan dt. 14/03/2005 for Rs. 32,85,000, dt. 29/03/2005 for Rs. 92,59,500/- for deduction under section 54B

RAM DARSHAN AGARWAL,BIJNORE vs. ITO,WARD-3(3), BIJNORE

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

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraita No.996/Del/2025, A.Y. 2019-20 Ram Darshan Agarwal, Income Tax Officer, J-3, Geeta Nagari, Ward 3(3), Bijnore 246701 Vs. Income Tax Office, Bijnore, Uttar Pradesh Bijnore (Up) Pan: Aaqpa6807M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Alok Kumar Gupta, Ca Respondent By Sh. Dheeraj Kumar Jain, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 20/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 22/08/2025 Order Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am This Appeal For The Assessment Year (‘Ay’) 2019-20 Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 26.12.2024 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac, New Delhi [‘Cit (A)’].

disallowed the claim of deduction under section 54 and 54B of the Act. The assessment order was passed at income

ITO, HISAR vs. SH. SANT SINGH PROP., HISAR

Bench: Sh. M. Balaganesh & Sh.Anubhav Sharma

section 54B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which are discussed in the assessment order itself and rightly been disallowed

AMAR SINGH,REWARI vs. ITO, WARD-1, REWARI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumar

disallowance of deduction u/s 54B by making re-investment by assessee in his wife and son name by following the judgment of decision of Punjab & Haryana High Court, which is jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Dinesh Verma, the contention of the assessee regarding claim of exemption u/s 54B is rejected. 2. That the learned Assessing Authority/CIT

ASHOK KUMAR,GURGAON vs. ITO WARD1(5), GURGAON

In the result, impugned order is upheld and appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआअसं.1639/िद"ी/2019(िन.व. 2015-16) Ashok Kumar, H.No. M-231, South City-1, Gurgaon, Haryana 122001 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Alypk-0003-G बनाम Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(5), ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Gurgaon, Haryana Assessee By : None Department By: Shri Ashish Tripathi, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 12/03/2025 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : : 11/06/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Gurgaon (Hereinafter Referred To As 'The Cit(A)') Dated 18.12.2018, For Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. A Perusal Of Appeal File Shows That The Appeal Was Filed In The Year 2019 & Thereafter, The Appeal Was Listed For Hearing On Fifteen Dates. On Most Of The Dates Fixed For Hearing None Appeared To Represent The Assessee & On Some Dates Wherever Representative Of The Assessee Appeared, Adjournment Was Sought. It Seems

disallowed assessee’s claim of deduction on the ground that for claiming deduction u/s. 54F of the Act, the new asset should have been purchased in the name of the assessee. The AO in support of his view placed reliance on the decision rendered in the case Jai Naryan vs. ITO, 306 ITR 335 (P&H.) 3.1. The AO also

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

OMPAL,MEERUT vs. ITO WARD - 2(1), M

In the result ground no. 2 of the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year: 2009-10

disallowing the Rebate U/s 54B on account of Ag. Land purchased by the assessee and CIT(A) confirmed the same without any basis 4. That the assessee rely upon Hon’ble I.T.A.T. Order of his brother Sh. Jai Prakash vide ITA No. 5456/Del/2014 who is having 1/3rd share in the property sold. Hence, Order of Hon’ble I.T.A.T. is applicable

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) vs. AIPECCS SOCIETY

section 10(23C)(vi) of the Act, we must also add that the prescribed authority would also necessarily have to examine the manner in which the affairs of the university or an educational institution have been conducted in the past for the purposes of considering whether the Assessee qualifies the threshold requirement of Section

DAYA RAM,MEERUT vs. ITO WARD 2(1), MEERUT

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member)

54B deduction claim as well as the alleged cost incurred in cash to the tune of Rs.1,97,275/- in question year 2008-09. The assessee thereafter preferred his appeal before the CIT(A), wherein his claim of section 54F deduction stands declined on the one hand and the said latter disallowance

SATISH,JIND vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, JIND

Appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godaraita No. 5619/Del/2024 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Satish, Vs Income Tax Officer, House No. 680, Nirjan, Ward-1, Jind Haryana-126102 Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Dfups0022C Assessee By: None Revenue By : Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 22.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 22.04.2025 Order

section 54B 2 Satish deduction of Rs.25,00,000/- on the one hand and sustained the remaining addition of Rs.9,00,000/- of cash deposits going by the Assessing Officer’s remand report. This is what leaves the assessee aggrieved. 4. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the assessee’s pleadings and Revenue’s foregoing vehement contentions