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

reassessment proceedings, requisite information was furnished by the assessee alongwith documentary evidences which were checked and placed on record and after verification, returned income was accepted by the Assessing Officer vide order dated 27.11.2019 framed u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act. 8. Assuming jurisdiction conferred upon him, the PCIT issued show cause notice dated 24.12.22021 which reads

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 of the Income Tax Act, of Rs. 69,30,800/- and completed the assessment u/s. 143(3)/147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 vide order dated 28.3.2013. 3. Aggrieved with the aforesaid assessment order, assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who vide his impugned order dated 28.4.2014 has allowed the appeal of the assessee quashing

KANTA MITTAL,DELHI vs. CIT(A)-26, DELHI

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

sections": [ "147", "143", "54B" ], "issues": "Whether reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147 were valid and whether the addition made was justified

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)

reassessment proceedings were validly initiated under section 147 of the Act after due recording of reasons and obtaining the requisite approval. The notices under sections 148 and 143(2) were duly served and the assessee participated in the proceedings. Hence, the allegation of violation of principles of natural justice is without merit. 9.2 On merits, the assessee failed to substantiate

SURAT SINGH,PANIPAT vs. ITO, WARD- 4, PANIPAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Surat Singh, The Income Tax Officer, Vpo Bhapra, Vs. Ward : 4, Samhalka, Panipat. Panipat – 132 103 [Haryana] Pan : Cqlps9692H Assessment Years : 2010-11 Shri Sultan Singh, The Income Tax Officer, Vpo Bhapra, Vs. Ward : 4, Samhalka, Panipat. Panipat – 132 101 [Haryana] Pan : Cpsps0826K (Appellants) (Respondent)

54B of the act. Thus, it was nil. The ld AO computed the capital gain in the hands of the assessee at " 876186 and made the addition. The impugned land was originally belonging to Mr. Shoyaram, Great grandfather of the assessee, from him it devolved upon to his two sons, Mr. Goverdhan and Kedara. From that it passed

SULTAN SINGH,PANIPAT vs. ITO, WARD- 4, PANIPAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Surat Singh, The Income Tax Officer, Vpo Bhapra, Vs. Ward : 4, Samhalka, Panipat. Panipat – 132 103 [Haryana] Pan : Cqlps9692H Assessment Years : 2010-11 Shri Sultan Singh, The Income Tax Officer, Vpo Bhapra, Vs. Ward : 4, Samhalka, Panipat. Panipat – 132 101 [Haryana] Pan : Cpsps0826K (Appellants) (Respondent)

54B of the act. Thus, it was nil. The ld AO computed the capital gain in the hands of the assessee at " 876186 and made the addition. The impugned land was originally belonging to Mr. Shoyaram, Great grandfather of the assessee, from him it devolved upon to his two sons, Mr. Goverdhan and Kedara. From that it passed

SH. RAMESH KUMAR L/H LATE SH. KUNWAR SINGH,HARYANA vs. ITO, HARYANA

The appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Beena A. Pillaia N D Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2007-08 Ramesh Kumar L/H Late Sh. Ito Kunwar Singh Ward- 2 S/O. Mohan Lal Vill. Namaul Padiawas, Haryana Vs. P.O. Gurdaspur, Majra, Tehsil & Distt. Rewari Haryana

reassessment proceedings under sections 147. The Ld. CIT (A) ought to have held that in absence of necessary sanction the notice was bad in law and ought to have quashed the notice issued by the Ld. AO. 2. The Ld. CIT (A) erred in not considering that the requirement of prior sanction before initiating notice under section 147 in view

POORAN SINGH,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, UTTAR PRADESH

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Smt Suchitra Kamblei.T.A .No.-1545/Del/2012 & Ita No. 4289/Del/2012 (Assessment Year-2007-08)

reassessment order framed by Ld. A.O on the ground that notice u/s 143(2) has not been issued during the course of assessment proceeding and thus assessment order is bad in law.” ITA No. 4289/Del/2012 was filed by the assessee in respect of the penalty confirmed by the CIT(A) under Section 271(1)(c). 3. The assessee has made

M/S. POORAN SINGH,DELHI vs. ITO, MUZAFFARNAGAR

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Smt Suchitra Kamblei.T.A .No.-1545/Del/2012 & Ita No. 4289/Del/2012 (Assessment Year-2007-08)

reassessment order framed by Ld. A.O on the ground that notice u/s 143(2) has not been issued during the course of assessment proceeding and thus assessment order is bad in law.” ITA No. 4289/Del/2012 was filed by the assessee in respect of the penalty confirmed by the CIT(A) under Section 271(1)(c). 3. The assessee has made

SMT ARTI SHARMA,GURGAON vs. ITO, GURGAON

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukla & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2010-11 Smt. Arti Sharma, Vs. Income Tax Officer, C/O- Kunal Aggarwal & Ward-3(3), Gurgaon Associates, 2Nd Floor Jmd Megapolis, Sector-48, Sohna Road, Gurgaon Pan :Bexps5432Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

54B of the Act, accordingly, he held the land as capital asset and the sale transaction was held as adventure in the nature of the trade in view of the various decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court cited in the assessment order. The Assessing Officer computed profit earned of Rs.1,10,71,250/- after subtracting cost of land

SH. DEVENDER KUMAR AGGARWAL,NEW DELHI vs. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri Prashant Maharishidevender Kumar Aggarwal, Cit 1533, Ranu Bagh, New Delhi Delhi-Ix, New Delhi Vs. Pan:Aaapa1974F (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 54B of the said Act. Therefore, the view taken by Respondent No.1 in the order dated 28.11.2008 is a possible view in law and the notice issued to reopen the assessment is only on account of change of opinion. In fact in the affidavit in reply dated 19.12.2012 the Respondent No. 1 has stated that reassessment

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

section 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

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

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

54B(2) of the Act on the ground that the said amount of Rs. 2.22 crores has been deposited in a capital gain scheme account. But no proof of same was furnished and accordingly notice u/s 148 was issued on 18.10.2014 for the assessment year 2008-09 after recording the reasons and obtaining necessary approval. The assessee submitted that return

MOHD. YAMEEN MUNNA,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO, WARD- 2(1), GHAZIABAD

In the result, appeal of Assessee allowed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini

54B of Rs.20,24,070/- and on the balance of Rs.22,79,930/-, assessee is liable to pay tax of long term capital gains, which have not been disclosed. The A.O. considering the above, computed the long term capital gains of Rs.18,01,265/-. 2.1. The assessee challenged the reopening of the assessment as well as addition on merit. However

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 account scheme. The assessee has not filed return of income within the time prescribed u/s 139 of IT Act. Return was filed only on 11.07.2016 in response

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

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 4 Amar Singh have been, deposited in bank in capital gain account scheme. The assessee has not filed return of income within the time prescribed u/s 139 of IT Act. Return was filed only

JAIPAL,GURGAON vs. ITO, WARD- 2(5), GURGAON

The Appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Naveen Chandrajaipal V Ito C/O. Kunal Aggarwal & S Ward 2(5) Associates, 226, Jmd Megapolis, Gurgaon. Haryana 2Nd Floor, Sector-48, Sohna Road, Gurgaon. Haryana Pan: Alapj3014C Appellant Respondent Assessee By None Revenue By Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 17/12/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 14/01/2026 Order

section 2(14), the distance is to be seen from any "Municipality' and accordingly held that the income arising on account of transfer of this land was taxable under the head capital gains. The Assessing Officer further noted that the appellant had purchased agricultural land on 02/12/2010 and 08/12/2010 amounting to Rs. 16,88,863/-. This amount was allowed

JAI KISHAN,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD -39(3), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri N.K.Billaiya & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2011-12] Jai Kishan, Vs Ito, 737, Village Pooth Khurd, Ward-39(3), New Delhi-110039. New Delhi. Pan-Aiepd4881E Appellant Respondent Appellant By Ms. Aakriti Dhawan, Adv. Respondent By Shri Sandeep Kr. Mishra, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 07.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 14.02.2024

section 54B of the I.T Act to the appellant, by rejecting it solely on the ground that the claim was made outside the return of income. Reliance is placed upon Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd. (2008) 306 ITR 42 and CIT v. Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders Pvt. Ltd. (2012) 349 ITR 336. 5 That the long term