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

ROHTASH SINGH,GURGAON vs. DCIT, GURGAON

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

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

disallowance to the tune of Rs.17,28,000/- on account of fencing and commission expenses. 2 ITA No.218/Del./2016 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) grossly erred in holding that AO was correct in restricting the benefit of section 54B

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. SH. HARISH CHANDER KHULLAR, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahua.Y. : 2006-07 Income Tax Officer, Sh. Harish Chander Khullar, Ward 27(2), Vs. E-88-B, Mansarover Garden, Room No. 1909, New Delhi – 110 015 E-2 Block, Civic Centre, (Pan: Aafpk8788A) Minto Road, New Delhi – 110 001 (Appellant) (Respondent)

54B such as sub section 1, 2, 3 or 4 etc. There is no dispute about the fact that the return of income has been filed by the appellant within sub section 4 of 139 of the I T Act. The Assessing Officer has erred in disallowing

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

ROHIT MEHNDIRATTA,PANIPAT vs. ITO, WARD- 5, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla

disallowance of exemption under section 54B of the Act. The assessee purchased joint agricultural land alongwith his mother and two other

PAL SINGH S/O SHRI BADAL SINGH,MUZAFFARNAGAR vs. ITO, SAHARANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhuassessment Year: 2013-14

disallowing the deduction as claimed under section 54B by purchasing Agricultural Land in the name of wife who is not having

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

ACIT, SONEPAT vs. SH SHER SINGH SHIVRAIN, JHAJJAR

In the result, ground is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri Prashant Maharishi

section 2(7A) of the Act, then too, order of assessment is without jurisdiction in absence of an order transferring jurisdiction u/s 127 of the Act from the learned Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Rohtak Circle, Rohtak to learned Joint Commissioner of Income Tax Rohtak Range, Rohtak 2 That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has grossly erred both

SHRI RAJIV DASS vs. DY. COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX, OSD, NEW DELHI

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI

section 54B of the Act [before amendment w.e.f 1.4.2013]wherein it was the first precondition that the ITA No. 327/2017 Page 6 of 13 land which was transferred must have been used by the assessee or a parent of his for agricultural purposes during the immediately preceding two years on which the transfer took place. In the present case, admittedly

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

LALIT MOHAN GUPTA,DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhua.Y. : 2009-10 Lalit Mohan Gupta Vs. Ito, Ward 20(4), D-125, Mahendru New Delhi Enclave, Delhi – 110009 (Pan: Ahtpg3030A) (Appellant) (Respondent)

disallowance. However, Ld. CIT(A) has considered the date of issuance of cheques for purchase of property instead of date of actual debit in the bank statement in reaching to the conclusion that payment for purchase of property has not been made out of sale proceeds. Even otherwise, section 54B

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

SH. DHAN SINGH,KARNAL vs. DCIT, PANIPAT

The appeal is allowed with above direction

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishishri Dhan Singh, Dcit, C/O Shri Parvesh Kumar Sharma Vs. Panipat Circle, Income Tax Advocate, Panipat. 493-L, Model Town, Karnal. Pan : Dbfps4345B (Appellant) (Respondent)

disallowing 50% of expenditure in improvement of land in the tune of Rs.42,50,000/-; 3. That the ld. CIT (Appeals) erred in law in allowing deduction of Rs.95,00,000/- paid as biyana u/s 54 of the act.” 2. The facts of the case shows that assessee is stated to be an agriculturist who has sold land

SH. JAIVEER SINGH,UTTAR PRADESH vs. ITO, MEERUT

In the result, appeal of Assessee allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini

disallowance of reduction u/s 54B is therefore, arbitrary, unjust, uncalled for and in any case illegal. 2. That under the facts & circumstances of the case, the learned lower authority has erred to treat the agriculture land as capital assets within meaning of section