SANJIV AHUJA,DELHI vs. ITO (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), DELHI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaasstt. Year 2012-13

54B, 54D, 54E, 54EA, and 54EB while the word "a" has been used in sections 54 and 54F of the Act. This clearly shows that the legislature intended different meanings to be given to these two words. A closer reading of these sections shows that legislature intended to allow exemption in respect of investment in more than one asset

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

house in his wife's name, the court had concluded that the assessee in such circumstances was entitled to exemption under section 54 of the Act. After giving our thoughtful consideration, we are unable to accept the view as laid down in V. Natarajan's case [2006] 287 ITR 271 (Mad).' Thus, even assuming that the assessee had invested

JAGJIT SINGH,PANIPAT vs. PR.CIT, KARNAL

In the result, appeal of Assessee allowed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

property) in the joint name [Para 12] ” 6.3. Learned Counsel for the Assessee also relied upon Judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT-XII vs., Kamal Wahal [2013] 351 ITR 4 (Del.) in which it was held as under : “For claiming deduction of capital gains under section 54F, new residential house need

RANDHIR SINGH,KARNAL vs. ITO, KARNAL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2007-08

house in his wife's name, the court had concluded that the assessee in such circumstances was entitled to exemption under section 54 of the Act. After giving our thoughtful consideration, we are unable to accept the view aslaid down V. Natrajan’s Case [2006] 287 ITR 271 (Mad.)” The Hon'ble Court has clearly highlighted that there

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

54B of the Act for the investment made in purchase of agriculture land till the extended date of filing of the return of income as provided under section 139(4) of the Act. 5.6 On the other hand, the Learned DR relied on the order of the lower authorities and submitted that in view of the decision

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)

section 54 was allowed where the new Simran Bagga residential property was purchased in the name o f the wife of the assessee. b) DIT vs. Mrs. Jennifer Bhide [2011] 15 taxmann.com 82 (Kar HC) - The Tribunal has allowed exemption u/s 54 for 12 Anil Bhardwaj Zambia investment in residential property by the assessee jointly with her husband. c) Kamlesh

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

54B has to be allowed investment in agricultural land is made in the name of wife, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble High Courts as under:- - Decision dated 15.2.2006 of the Hon’ble High Court of Madras in the case of CIT vs. Natarajan – wherein it was observed in the (Head Notes) that Section

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

House Property at Flat 4063. ATS Paradiso, CHI-04, Greater Noida. Hence, amount of Long Term Capital gain is fully exempt u/s. 54 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. (Kindly refer Page no.27 To 46) The Grounds of Appeal furnished herewith (Kindly refer Page no.57 to Page no.58) are in itself self-explanatory and the same may kindly be reviewed

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:

54B of the Act amounting to Rs.3,08,33,650/-. On receiving the Income-tax Return, in response to the notice under section 148 of the Act, notice under section 143(2) of the Act was issued on 07.07.2017. Copy of reasons were provided to assessee vide order sheet entry dated 07.07.2017. The assessee represented by Shri L. C. Yadav

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

house] so purchased or constructed (hereafter in this\nsection referred to as the new asset)], the difference between the\namount of the capital gain and the cost of the new asset shall be\ncharged under section 45 as the income of the previous year; and\nfor the purpose of computing in respect of the new asset any capital\ngain arising

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

Section 54 amounting to Rs. 1,13,04,000/- made by the AO. The CIT(Appeals) as well as the AO failed to appreciate that the Assessee had purchased only one residential property. 3. That, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(Appeals) as well as the AO have erred in law and on facts in treating

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

house property as on 14.12.2011 ^n a consideration of Rs.98,00,000/- in the name of his wife Smt. Anita Malhotra.” 3. Shri Pawan Yadav, Income Tax Officer,Ward-1(1), Gurugram has neither examined this legal issue nor made any enquiry. He did not examine or raise the legal issue regarding the relief claimed u/s 54 of Income

RAJ KUMAR BHARDWAJ,MEERUT vs. ITO, WARD-2(2), MEERUT

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

house property and other sources. Assessee filed his return of income for A.Y. 2013-14 on 28.03.2014 declaring total income of Rs.4,96,490/- and agricultural income of Rs.1,98,000/-. The case was selected for scrutiny. AO noted that the notices issued u/s 143(2) and 142(1) remained uncomplied. He, thereafter, framed assessment u/s 144 vide order dated

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

property. There is nothing to support that any expenditure was incurred towards cost of development of house at plot no. 1402, Sector-6, Bahadurgarh in the instant year. Having regard to above, we feel that action of the CIT(A) is in order and claim of the appellant is therefore, rejected. In the result, the grounds raised by the appellant

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

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

Section 54B and take a decision in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The appeal of the assessee on this ground and the CO of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. 3. Deed No. 986 – Rs.39,08,000 23. As per the AO,  The assessee purchased land on 28.09.2010 for a total cost of Rs.34

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 on the ground that the sale proceeds were invested in residential property and agricultural land, thereby implicitly accepting that the asset sold was a capital asset. The total deduction claimed amounted to Rs.10,65,18,984/-. In respect of the claim under section 54F, the Assessing Officer found that the assessee failed to produce any documentary evidence to establish

ACIT, CIRCLE-56(1), NEW DELHI vs. SANDEEP TANEJA, DELHI

Bench: Dr. B.R.R.Kumar & Sh.Anubhav Sharmaacit, Vs. Shri Sandeep Taneja, Circle- 56(1), C-228, Surajmal Vihar New Delhi Delhi-110092 Pan – Aadpt6410G

House Property and second Large deduction claimed u/s 54B, 54C, 54D, 54G, 54GA. But the addition was made declining benefit of section

PREET SINGH, vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OFINCOME TAX, CIRCLE 32(1), & ANR.

The appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU

54B, inter alia, required the appellant/assessee to invest the proceeds from sale of land in a land which was used for agricultural purposes, while Section 54F required the proceeds to be invested in a residential house. 10. The finding of fact returned by the AO was that the proceeds obtained by the appellant/assessee were invested in a commercial property