CIT v. Naresh Khattar (HUF)

M/S Landbase India Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2011-12 is allowed

Bench: Smt Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

…igher price or value can be taken to be the basis for computation of capital gains. Reliance is also placed on the decisions of the jurisdictional High Court of Delhi in CIT V. Gulshan Kumar (Deed.) (2002) 257 ITR 703 (Del.) & CIT V. Naresh Khattar HUF (2003) 261 ITR 664 (Delhi), CIT V. Sm. Sushila Devi (2002) 256 ITR 179 (Delhi) and CIT v. Smt. Nilofer I. Singh (2009) 221 CTR 277/ (2009)176 Taxman 252/(2008)14 DTR 108. These decisions make it more than clear that the expression „the full value of consideration‟ as contemplated in section 48 of the Act does not have any reference to the market value but only to t…

Landbase India Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2011-12 is allowed

Bench: Smt Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

…igher price or value can be taken to be the basis for computation of capital gains. Reliance is also placed on the decisions of the jurisdictional High Court of Delhi in CIT V. Gulshan Kumar (Deed.) (2002) 257 ITR 703 (Del.) & CIT V. Naresh Khattar HUF (2003) 261 ITR 664 (Delhi), CIT V. Sm. Sushila Devi (2002) 256 ITR 179 (Delhi) and CIT v. Smt. Nilofer I. Singh (2009) 221 CTR 277/ (2009)176 Taxman 252/(2008)14 DTR 108. These decisions make it more than clear that the expression „the full value of consideration‟ as contemplated in section 48 of the Act does not have any reference to the market value but only to t…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Landbase India Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2011-12 is allowed

Bench: Smt Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

…igher price or value can be taken to be the basis for computation of capital gains. Reliance is also placed on the decisions of the jurisdictional High Court of Delhi in CIT V. Gulshan Kumar (Deed.) (2002) 257 ITR 703 (Del.) & CIT V. Naresh Khattar HUF (2003) 261 ITR 664 (Delhi), CIT V. Sm. Sushila Devi (2002) 256 ITR 179 (Delhi) and CIT v. Smt. Nilofer I. Singh (2009) 221 CTR 277/ (2009)176 Taxman 252/(2008)14 DTR 108. These decisions make it more than clear that the expression „the full value of consideration‟ as contemplated in section 48 of the Act does not have any reference to the market value but only to t…

Mr. Jagat Singh, Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

Bench: Shri N. K. Saini & Ms Suchitra Kambleita No. 3037/Del/2015 ( A.Y 2005-06) Ita No. 3039/Del/2015 ( A.Y 2007-08)

…the Act, the burden rests on the revenue to establish that investment has been made by an assessee in whose hands additions are being made. The Hon’ble High Court of the Delhi in the case of CIT vs. Commissioner of Income-tax v. Naresh Khattar HUF reported in 261 ITR 664 has held that burden to establish that an investment has been made while the provision of the section 69 of the Act is on the revenue. In the following judicial pronouncements, it has been held likewise that while invoking the provisions of section 69C of the Act, the burden is on the revenue. The texture and colour of both the provisions are sam…

Mr. Jagat Singh, Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

Bench: Shri N. K. Saini & Ms Suchitra Kambleita No. 3037/Del/2015 ( A.Y 2005-06) Ita No. 3039/Del/2015 ( A.Y 2007-08)

…the Act, the burden rests on the revenue to establish that investment has been made by an assessee in whose hands additions are being made. The Hon’ble High Court of the Delhi in the case of CIT vs. Commissioner of Income-tax v. Naresh Khattar HUF reported in 261 ITR 664 has held that burden to establish that an investment has been made while the provision of the section 69 of the Act is on the revenue. In the following judicial pronouncements, it has been held likewise that while invoking the provisions of section 69C of the Act, the burden is on the revenue. The texture and colour of both the provisions are sam…

Mr. Jagat Singh, Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

Bench: Shri N. K. Saini & Ms Suchitra Kambleita No. 3037/Del/2015 ( A.Y 2005-06) Ita No. 3039/Del/2015 ( A.Y 2007-08)

…the Act, the burden rests on the revenue to establish that investment has been made by an assessee in whose hands additions are being made. The Hon’ble High Court of the Delhi in the case of CIT vs. Commissioner of Income-tax v. Naresh Khattar HUF reported in 261 ITR 664 has held that burden to establish that an investment has been made while the provision of the section 69 of the Act is on the revenue. In the following judicial pronouncements, it has been held likewise that while invoking the provisions of section 69C of the Act, the burden is on the revenue. The texture and colour of both the provisions are sam…

Mr. Jagat Singh, Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

Bench: Shri N. K. Saini & Ms Suchitra Kambleita No. 3037/Del/2015 ( A.Y 2005-06) Ita No. 3039/Del/2015 ( A.Y 2007-08)

…the Act, the burden rests on the revenue to establish that investment has been made by an assessee in whose hands additions are being made. The Hon’ble High Court of the Delhi in the case of CIT vs. Commissioner of Income-tax v. Naresh Khattar HUF reported in 261 ITR 664 has held that burden to establish that an investment has been made while the provision of the section 69 of the Act is on the revenue. In the following judicial pronouncements, it has been held likewise that while invoking the provisions of section 69C of the Act, the burden is on the revenue. The texture and colour of both the provisions are sam…

Inder Singh, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Sh. S. K. Yadav & Sh. Prashant Maharishiinder Singh Vs Ito 94, Village Goela Khurd Ward-43(3) New Delhi New Delhi Bcrps3678G (Respondent) (Appellant) Appellant By Sh. Sanjay Kumar Gupta, Ca Respondent By Sh. S. L. Anuragi, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 22.05.2018 Date Of Pronouncement 23.08.2018

…0 (Del- HC) (page 45 to 47), CIT Vs. Lahsa Construction (P.) Ltd., 357ITR 671 (3) 17 Inder Singh V ITO A Y 2009-10 (Del), K. P. Varghese V. ITO. (1981) 7 Taxman 13 (4) (SC) = (1981) 24 CTR 358 =(1981) 131 ITR 597. (5) CIT v. Naresh Khattar (HUF), (2003) 261 ITR 664 (DEL) (2003) 183 CTR 317: “Therefore. if the Revenue seeks to hold that the assessee has received more than what has been declared by him in respect of the assessment in question, the onus would lie on the Revenue to prove this fact by bringing seme material on record." "We feel that the Tribunal was correct in holding that merely because couns…

Anil Kumar Garg, Ghaziabad vs. DCIT, Circle- 1, Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Sainiita No. 456/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Anil Kumar Garg, Vs Dcit, 17-A, Heritage Divine Circle-1 Apartments, Gyan Khand-Ii, Ghaziabad Indirapuram, Ghaziabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Abfpg5598R Assessee By : Sh. Praveen K. Agarwal, Ca & Sh. Ashutosh Mohan, Ca Revenue By : Ms. Ashima Neb, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 07.06.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.08.2018 Order This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 17.10.2017 Of Ld. Cit(A), Ghaziabad. 2. Following Grounds Have Been Raised In This Appeal: “1. That The Order As Passed The Ld. Cit (Appeal) Is Bad, Arbitrary & Erroneous In Law & On Facts Of The Case. Tax Demand Of Rs. 444350/- Confirmed By The Ld. Cit (Appeal) Is Also Wrong & Against The Facts Of The Case & In Law. 2. That The Ld. Cit (Appeal ) Has Erred In Confirming The Action Of The A.O For Issue Of Notice U/S 148 Even Though Reasons Recorded By The A.O. Were Valid & Sustainable On Facts Of Case. 3. That The Ld. Cit (Appeal ) Has Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Rs,1014550/-Even Though Section 50-C Was Not Applicable On The Appellant (Purchaser Of Property).

…the AO was not justified. The reliance was placed on the following case laws: " KP Varghese Vs ITO [1981 (9) TMI 1-SC] " CIT Vs PV Kalyanasundaram (2006) 203 CTR 449 (Mad.) " CIT Vs PV Kalyanasundaram [2007 (9) TMI 25 –SC] " CIT Vs Naresh Khatter (HUF) (2003) 261 ITR 664 (Del.) " Amar Kumari Surana Vs CIT (1997) 226 ITR 344 (Raj.) " CIT Vs Dinesh Jain HUF (2013) 352 ITR 0629 (Del.) " CIT, Delhi-II Vs Khoobsurat Resorts Pvt. Ltd. [2012 (11) TMI 590-Del.] " DCIT, Circle-9 Vs Virjibhai Kalyanbhai [2012 (10) TMI 791 –ITAT Ahd.] " ITO, Ward-4(3) Vs Harley Street Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (2010) 6 ITR 182 (Ahd.) " DCIT, Cir…

Commissioner of Income Tax VII vs. Shri Karan Khandelwal

The appeals are allowed

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN

…ge 15 of 33 decisions of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Central-III v. Suneet Verma 145 (2007) DLT 280 (DB), Commissioner of Income Tax XI v. Shri Puneet Sabharwal 291 338 ITR 485 (Delhi) and Commissioner of Income Tax v. Naresh Khattar (2003) 261 ITR 664 (Delhi). 14. In K.P. Varghese (supra), the assessee sold a house which he had purchased in 1958 to his daughter in law and five of his children, for the same consideration, in the year 1965. The Assessing Officer sought to reopen the assessment invoking the provisions of Section 52(2) of Income Tax Act and proposing to fix the market value…

The Commissioner of Income Tax Central III vs. Sunil Bedi

The appeals are allowed

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN

…ge 15 of 33 decisions of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Central-III v. Suneet Verma 145 (2007) DLT 280 (DB), Commissioner of Income Tax XI v. Shri Puneet Sabharwal 291 338 ITR 485 (Delhi) and Commissioner of Income Tax v. Naresh Khattar (2003) 261 ITR 664 (Delhi). 14. In K.P. Varghese (supra), the assessee sold a house which he had purchased in 1958 to his daughter in law and five of his children, for the same consideration, in the year 1965. The Assessing Officer sought to reopen the assessment invoking the provisions of Section 52(2) of Income Tax Act and proposing to fix the market value…

The Commissioner of Income Tax Central III vs. Sunil Bedi

The appeals are allowed

…ge 15 of 33 decisions of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Central-III v. Suneet Verma 145 (2007) DLT 280 (DB), Commissioner of Income Tax XI v. Shri Puneet Sabharwal 291 338 ITR 485 (Delhi) and Commissioner of Income Tax v. Naresh Khattar (2003) 261 ITR 664 (Delhi). 14. In K.P. Varghese (supra), the assessee sold a house which he had purchased in 1958 to his daughter in law and five of his children, for the same consideration, in the year 1965. The Assessing Officer sought to reopen the assessment invoking the provisions of Section 52(2) of Income Tax Act and proposing to fix the market value…