JAGJIT SINGH,PANIPAT vs. PR.CIT, KARNAL

In the result, appeal of Assessee allowed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

1) on 27th June, 2008. Notice under section 148 have been issued thereafter on 13th March, 2015 and reassessment order have been passed on 2nd March, 2016 accepting the returned income. PB-27 is audit objection dated 17th August, 2016 which led to the exercise of power by the Ld. Pr. CIT for revision under section 263 of the Income

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

1. That the assessment order passed is illegal, invalid and void. 2. That the reasons recorded u/s 147 of the I.T. Act, 1961 by the Ld. A.O. were merely based on the suspicion and without any tangible material so as to suggest any escapement of income. Hence the reassessment 2 Braham Prakash Vs. ITO proceedings are liable to be quashed

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

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

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 Tax Act, 1961 during advance the benefit of the said section to an assessee who purchased the agricultural land even in the name of a third person. Wherever the Legislature intended

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

1. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld. AO in framing the impugned reassessment order u/s 148/144 and that too without assuming jurisdiction as per law and without complying with the mandatory conditions u/s 147 to 151 as envisaged under

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. 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

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

54B is made by the Appellant in time under section 139(1 )/l39(4) but the same has been wrongly disallowed by the Ld. AO. 19. The Ld. CIT (A)/ Ld. AO has grossly erred on facts and in law by initiating penalty under section 271(1 )(c) of the Act mechanically and without recording any satisfaction for its initiation

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

SATYABIR SINGH YADAV,GURGAON vs. ITO, GURGAON

In the result all the three appeals of the assessees are partly allowed, as indicated above

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं .I.T.A No. 3024/Del/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Satya Pal, Income Tax Officer, बनाम S/O. Late Maha Singh, Ward : 4 (1) Vs. Vill. & P.O. Nakhrola, Tehsil Gurgaon. Manesar, Distt. Gurgaon, Haryana – 122 001. Pan No. Aabpy6152A A N D आ.अ.सं .I.T.A No. 3022/Del/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Satyabir Singh, Income Tax Officer, बनाम S/O. Late Maha Singh, Ward : 4 (1) Vs. Vill. & P.O. Nakhrola, Tehsil Gurgaon. Manesar, Distt. Gurgaon, Haryana – 122 001. Pan No. Aacpy7890A A N D आ.अ.सं .I.T.A No. 3023/Del/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Rati Ram, Income Tax Officer, बनाम S/O. Late Maha Singh, Ward : 4 (1) Vs. Vill. & P.O. Nakhrola, Tehsil Gurgaon. Manesar, Distt. Gurgaon, Haryana – 122 001. Pan No. Aaopy3440Q अपीलाथ"/ Appellants ""थ"/ Respondents

54B & 54F of the I.T. Act 1961; 8. Charging interest u/s 234A and 234B of the Income-tax Act, 1961.” 3. At the time of hearing permission was sought to raise the following as additional grounds of appeal: "1. in assuming jurisdiction over the case without any authority of law and in derogation of the jurisdiction as originally vested with

SATYA PAL,GURGAON vs. ITO, GURGAON

In the result all the three appeals of the assessees are partly allowed, as indicated above

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं .I.T.A No. 3024/Del/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Satya Pal, Income Tax Officer, बनाम S/O. Late Maha Singh, Ward : 4 (1) Vs. Vill. & P.O. Nakhrola, Tehsil Gurgaon. Manesar, Distt. Gurgaon, Haryana – 122 001. Pan No. Aabpy6152A A N D आ.अ.सं .I.T.A No. 3022/Del/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Satyabir Singh, Income Tax Officer, बनाम S/O. Late Maha Singh, Ward : 4 (1) Vs. Vill. & P.O. Nakhrola, Tehsil Gurgaon. Manesar, Distt. Gurgaon, Haryana – 122 001. Pan No. Aacpy7890A A N D आ.अ.सं .I.T.A No. 3023/Del/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Rati Ram, Income Tax Officer, बनाम S/O. Late Maha Singh, Ward : 4 (1) Vs. Vill. & P.O. Nakhrola, Tehsil Gurgaon. Manesar, Distt. Gurgaon, Haryana – 122 001. Pan No. Aaopy3440Q अपीलाथ"/ Appellants ""थ"/ Respondents

54B & 54F of the I.T. Act 1961; 8. Charging interest u/s 234A and 234B of the Income-tax Act, 1961.” 3. At the time of hearing permission was sought to raise the following as additional grounds of appeal: "1. in assuming jurisdiction over the case without any authority of law and in derogation of the jurisdiction as originally vested with

RATI RAM,GURGAON vs. ITO, GURGAON

In the result all the three appeals of the assessees are partly allowed, as indicated above

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं .I.T.A No. 3024/Del/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Satya Pal, Income Tax Officer, बनाम S/O. Late Maha Singh, Ward : 4 (1) Vs. Vill. & P.O. Nakhrola, Tehsil Gurgaon. Manesar, Distt. Gurgaon, Haryana – 122 001. Pan No. Aabpy6152A A N D आ.अ.सं .I.T.A No. 3022/Del/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Satyabir Singh, Income Tax Officer, बनाम S/O. Late Maha Singh, Ward : 4 (1) Vs. Vill. & P.O. Nakhrola, Tehsil Gurgaon. Manesar, Distt. Gurgaon, Haryana – 122 001. Pan No. Aacpy7890A A N D आ.अ.सं .I.T.A No. 3023/Del/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Rati Ram, Income Tax Officer, बनाम S/O. Late Maha Singh, Ward : 4 (1) Vs. Vill. & P.O. Nakhrola, Tehsil Gurgaon. Manesar, Distt. Gurgaon, Haryana – 122 001. Pan No. Aaopy3440Q अपीलाथ"/ Appellants ""थ"/ Respondents

54B & 54F of the I.T. Act 1961; 8. Charging interest u/s 234A and 234B of the Income-tax Act, 1961.” 3. At the time of hearing permission was sought to raise the following as additional grounds of appeal: "1. in assuming jurisdiction over the case without any authority of law and in derogation of the jurisdiction as originally vested with

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)

1) The question of census or situation of land within the municipal limits or distance within 2 KMs is wrong and mistaken. Perhaps the pleadings of the assessee are based upon the amended provisions of section 2(14)(iii)(b) according to which the land situated beyond a distance of municipal limits of a town having population

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

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

HARIOM,GURGAON vs. ITO, GURGAON

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed as

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.3033/Del/2017 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 बनाम Vs. Ito, Vijay Pal, S/O Late Sh. Manohar Lal, Ward-4(4), Village & P.O. Nakhrola, Gurgaon. Tehsil Manesar, Gurgaon. Pan No.Anvpp7279G अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.3031/Del/2017 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 बनाम Vs. Ito, Raj Singh, S/O Late Sh. Manohar Lal, Ward-3(3), Village & P.O. Nakhrola, Gurgaon. Tehsil Manesar, Gurgaon. Pan No.Bjdps1075G अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.3032/Del/2017 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 बनाम Vs. Ito Hariom, S/O Late Sh. Manohar Lal, Ward-2(1), Village & P.O. Nakhrola, Gurgaon. Tehsil Manesar, Gurgaon. Pan No.Afuph1298A अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

54B & 54F of the I.T. Act, 1961; 8. Charging interest u/s 234A and 234B of the Income-tax Act, 1961. All the above actions being arbitrary, erroneous and unlawful must be quashed with directions for appropriate relief.” 3. At the time of hearing permission was sought to raise the following additional grounds of appeal:- “Permission is respectfully sought for raising