ACIT CIRCLE-1(2), NEW DELHI vs. ASSOCIATED TECHNO PLASTICS PVT LTD, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh(), Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishrakusum Dube Vs. Ito Ward 2(3) C/O Kapil Goel Adv. Gurgaon, Income Tax F-26/124 Sector 7, Rohini Department, Phase V, Delhi - 110085 Udyog Vihar, Sector 19, Gurugram, Haryana 122016 Haryana "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aewpd9787R Appellant .. Respondent

capital gain rejecting the claim under Section 54F of the Act. The Ld.CIT(A) restricted the said addition to the tune of Rs.15,63,566/-. 3. The case of the assessee before us is this that the order passed by the Ld. AO being ITO, Ward -2(3), Gurgaon under Section 143(3) is without appreciating the fact that

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 05 , DELHI vs. DEEPAK KOTHARI , KANPUR

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

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI VIMAL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

2 of the assessment order and submitted that during assessment proceedings, the AO observed that assessee had sold number of immovable properties being plots of land and had LTCG. On perusal of the computation of capital gains, it revealed that assessee had sold plot of land at KW-29/1 and 29/2, to his share of 50% for Rs.7.20 crores

DEEPAK KATHARI,KANPUR vs. ACIT, CC-5, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI VIMAL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

2 of the assessment order and submitted that during assessment proceedings, the AO observed that assessee had sold number of immovable properties being plots of land and had LTCG. On perusal of the computation of capital gains, it revealed that assessee had sold plot of land at KW-29/1 and 29/2, to his share of 50% for Rs.7.20 crores

ESSAR COMMUNICATIONS LIMITED,MAURITIUS vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1 (2)(2), NEW DELHI

Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

Section 6(3) of the IT Act India read with Article 4(3) of the Treaty 26 (II) Judicial Dicta on tests for “control and management of affairs 223-239 situated wholly in India” 27 (III) Case of Dual Residence under the Treaty-Applicability of 235-239 Article 4(3) of Indo Mauritius DTAA Part-B-VI - Rebuttal of objections

CAIRN UK HOLDING LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), NEW DELHI

In the result ground No. 5 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

2)/2Q13-14/453 dated ' 25.02.2014" (Emphasis added) 6.8 Further, in the said reasons, at various places reference was given of the February 2014. This goes to prove that the survey report was received by the AO in the month of February 2014 only. 6.9 In view of the above, the Appellant submits that since the survey report had been received

ADDL. CIT, GHAZIABAD vs. M/S AMRIT CORP LTD., GHAZIABAD

Appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaay: 2007-08 Ay: 2008-09

section 45(2) of the Act, takes place only when the assessee, by his voluntary act, converts/treats the capital asset into stock in trade and not otherwise. 3.011 The Ld. AR further submitted that there may be many instances where an assessee may seek permission from a regulatory /development authority for change in the land use. Therefore, seeking such change

AMRIT CORP LTD.,GHAZIABAD vs. ADDL. CIT, GHAZIABAD

Appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaay: 2007-08 Ay: 2008-09

section 45(2) of the Act, takes place only when the assessee, by his voluntary act, converts/treats the capital asset into stock in trade and not otherwise. 3.011 The Ld. AR further submitted that there may be many instances where an assessee may seek permission from a regulatory /development authority for change in the land use. Therefore, seeking such change

ADDL. CIT, GHAZIABAD vs. M/S. AMRIT CORP LTD., GHAZIABAD

Appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaay: 2007-08 Ay: 2008-09

section 45(2) of the Act, takes place only when the assessee, by his voluntary act, converts/treats the capital asset into stock in trade and not otherwise. 3.011 The Ld. AR further submitted that there may be many instances where an assessee may seek permission from a regulatory /development authority for change in the land use. Therefore, seeking such change

AMRIT CORP LTD.,GHAZIABAD vs. ADDL. CIT, GHAZIABAD

Appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaay: 2007-08 Ay: 2008-09

section 45(2) of the Act, takes place only when the assessee, by his voluntary act, converts/treats the capital asset into stock in trade and not otherwise. 3.011 The Ld. AR further submitted that there may be many instances where an assessee may seek permission from a regulatory /development authority for change in the land use. Therefore, seeking such change

SMT. RANJANA GARG,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the CO of the assessee is allowed and

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaranjana Garg, Vs Dcit 141, Sunder Nagar, Central Circle 12, New Delhi. Jhandewalan Aanpg3625Q Extn., New Delhi. Ranjana Garg, Vs Dcit 141, Sunder Nagar, Central Circle 12, New Delhi. Jhandewalan Aanpg3625Q Extn., New Delhi. Acit Vs Amita Garg, Central Circle 12, G-15, Maharani Bagh, New Delhi. New Delhi. Aadpg0990L Acit Vs Amita Garg, Central Circle 12, G-15, Maharani Bagh, New Delhi. New Delhi. Aadpg0990L

section 153A of the I.T. Act. Perusal of the assessment order as quoted above very unambiguously evidences that the additions made by the AO were not based on any incriminating documents. The additions made therefore, were indisputably outside the scope of assessments u/s 153A of the I.T. Act and deserves to be deleted. The Ld. CIT (A) has also

ANALJIT SINGH,DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 16(2), DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P.Kant

127 (Del.) 21. Clarifying the intention of legislature, Mr. Vohra submitted that, wherever the legislature intended to substitute the actual consideration with the fair market value, provision to the said effect has been specifically prescribed in the Statute, for instance, Section 50C prescribed for substitution of actual consideration in case of transfer of land and/ or building with circle rate

MANISH TYAGI,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO, GHAZIABAD

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Manish Tyagi, Vs. Ito, House No. 131, Sector-6, Ward-1(4), Chiranjeev Vihar, Ghaziabad Ghaziabad Pan: Acgpt1413J (Appellant) (Respondent)

capital gain and therefore the calculation made by the Assessing Officer is contrary to the provisions of section 48 of the Income Tax Act. 11. That the Assessing Officer and consequently the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not giving benefit of investment of Rs. 57,79,893/- made by Mr Ashok Tyagi

MAHAVIR SINGH,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-8(2), NEW DELHI

Bench: SHRI G.S. PANNU, HON'BLE (Vice President), SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member)

capital gains from sale of listed shares on which STT was paid. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS. Though the proceedings of assessment for the AY 2014-15 were going on with the Income Tax Officer, Ward 70(2), notice U/S 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 19-09-2016 was received

ANANT RAJ LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(2), NEW DELHI

The appeal is allowed partly as indicated above

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Section 154(7) of the Act provides for a rectification within four years from the end of the financial year in which the order u/s 143(3) of the Act was passed which in this case was by 31/03/2016. The assessee filed the letter revising the computation of income on 29/02/2016 with which, the cancellation of the sale deed

DCIT, CIRCLE-2(2), NEW DELHI vs. ANANT RAJ LTD., NEW DELHI

The appeal is allowed partly as indicated above

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Section 154(7) of the Act provides for a rectification within four years from the end of the financial year in which the order u/s 143(3) of the Act was passed which in this case was by 31/03/2016. The assessee filed the letter revising the computation of income on 29/02/2016 with which, the cancellation of the sale deed

DCIT, CIRCLE-2(2), NEW DELHI vs. ANANT RAJ LTD., NEW DELHI

The appeal is allowed partly as indicated above

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Section 154(7) of the Act provides for a rectification within four years from the end of the financial year in which the order u/s 143(3) of the Act was passed which in this case was by 31/03/2016. The assessee filed the letter revising the computation of income on 29/02/2016 with which, the cancellation of the sale deed

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. NIIT TECHNOLOGIES LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and cross objection of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuassessment Year: 2006-07

127,860 Less Dep. as per I. T. Act 121,857,096 Total 650,844,191 Less Deduction u/s 10B 663,007,954 Income from Business (12,163,763) Income from Capital Gain Short Term Capital Gain 1,04,31,946. Long Term Capital Loss to be carried Forward 5,54,28,693 Income from Other Sources 2

SMT. AARTI SEKHRI,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Kul Bharat

gains tax by the AO at Rs 2,32,08,282. As a result, grounds I to 7 of the appeal are dismissed. Appeal against the initiation of penalty proceedings is premature and hence ground 8 of the appeal is also dismissed.” 7.3. Submissions on behalf of the assessee:- “That all the 17 captioned appeals involve consideration of common issue