COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

capital gain has been declared or not by Mani Kakkar and it was only for this purpose that notice was being issued under Section 158BD. The contention was that the satisfaction note did not record that the Assessing Officer assessing Kedarnath Gupta was satisfied, even prima facie, that the undisclosed income thrown up during the search belonged to the assessee

BHUPINDER SINGH JULKA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-INT. TAX. 2(1)(2), DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri M. Balaganesh

section 40 (a) (ia) of the Act. ii) 132 Taxmann.com 231 (Delhi- Trib.) Smt. Abha Bansal vs. The Pr. CIT (Central), Gurgaon 9.12 It is clear that the compensation received by the assessee on cancellation of the Builder-Buyer Agreement is capital receipt and taxable as capital gains

ARUNA CHAUDHARY,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-26, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

132/- being long term capital gain on sale of Punjab Khor land claimed it exempt u/s 54B of the Income Tax Act. 4.1 That the ld. CIT (A) has wrongly invoked the powers u/s 251 of the Act to enhance the assessment without appreciating the fact that the said section

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. R.J. CORP LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is allowed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

capital gain on sale of shares I am partly confirming the AO’s action. The additional income resulting from part confirmation of those grounds would also be telescoped into the above stated Rs. 8,24,33,171/- as the same is covered by the narration of the surrendered income.” 25. We find that this is an ad-hoc enhancement made

M/S. RJ CORP LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is allowed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

capital gain on sale of shares I am partly confirming the AO’s action. The additional income resulting from part confirmation of those grounds would also be telescoped into the above stated Rs. 8,24,33,171/- as the same is covered by the narration of the surrendered income.” 25. We find that this is an ad-hoc enhancement made

M/S. RJ CORP LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is allowed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

capital gain on sale of shares I am partly confirming the AO’s action. The additional income resulting from part confirmation of those grounds would also be telescoped into the above stated Rs. 8,24,33,171/- as the same is covered by the narration of the surrendered income.” 25. We find that this is an ad-hoc enhancement made

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. R.J. CORP LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is allowed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

capital gain on sale of shares I am partly confirming the AO’s action. The additional income resulting from part confirmation of those grounds would also be telescoped into the above stated Rs. 8,24,33,171/- as the same is covered by the narration of the surrendered income.” 25. We find that this is an ad-hoc enhancement made

SARVA CAPITAL LLC,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE INTERNATIONAL TAX 3(1)(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Dr. B. R. R. Kumar

132 Taxman 373 (SC). He submitted, even, the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in case of Blackstone Capital Partners (Singapore) VI FDI Three Pte Ltd. vs. ACIT, 146 taxmann.com 569 (Del) has categorically held that tax authorities cannot go behind TRC, as the TRC issued by the competent authority of another country is sufficient evidence to claim Treaty eligibility, residential

ANUBHAV KAPOOR,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - 2(1)(1), GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2016-17]

132/- Long Term Capital Gain Rs.1,06,43,868/- Less: Deduction u/s 54 of the IT Act, Rs. 1,01,55,000/- 1961 Net Long Term Capital Gain Rs. 4,88,868/- 3.2. The AO noted that the assessee while calculating the LTCG had not adopted the sale consideration of the property as per section

ASHOK KUMAR BANSAL,GURGAON vs. PR, CIT CENTRAL DELHI-1, DELHI

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

capital gains arising from the sale of loose diamonds and the said issue since the subject matter before the Ld. CIT(A), decision on the said issue is squarely out of the jurisdiction that the Ld. PCIT in terms of the mandatory provision of Clause C of Explanation 1 to Section 263 of the Act. In this regard

ASHOK KUMAR BANSAL,GURGAON vs. PR, CIT CENTRAL, DELHI-1, DELHI

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

capital gains arising from the sale of loose diamonds and the said issue since the subject matter before the Ld. CIT(A), decision on the said issue is squarely out of the jurisdiction that the Ld. PCIT in terms of the mandatory provision of Clause C of Explanation 1 to Section 263 of the Act. In this regard

ASHOK KUMAR BANSAL,GURGAON vs. PR, CIT CENTRAL DELHI-1, DELHI

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

capital gains arising from the sale of loose diamonds and the said issue since the subject matter before the Ld. CIT(A), decision on the said issue is squarely out of the jurisdiction that the Ld. PCIT in terms of the mandatory provision of Clause C of Explanation 1 to Section 263 of the Act. In this regard

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, NOIDA, NOIDA vs. SARASWATI AMMAL EDUCATION AND CHARITABLE TRUST, CHENNAI

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 132(4A) of the Act, presumption should have been drawn against the said Sh. V. Mathiyalgan not against the Assessee trust and assessee has duly rebutted such presumption. 14. The Ld. Counsel has also taken us through the statements of Sh. V. Mathiyalgan recorded on oath u/s 131(1A) as well as 132(4) of the Income

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NOIDA vs. SARASWATI AMMAL EDUCATION AND CHARITABLE TRUST, CHENNAI

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 132(4A) of the Act, presumption should have been drawn against the said Sh. V. Mathiyalgan not against the Assessee trust and assessee has duly rebutted such presumption. 14. The Ld. Counsel has also taken us through the statements of Sh. V. Mathiyalgan recorded on oath u/s 131(1A) as well as 132(4) of the Income

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, , NOIDA vs. SARASWATI AMMAL EDUCATION AND CHARITABLE TRUST, , CHENNAI

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 132(4A) of the Act, presumption should have been drawn against the said Sh. V. Mathiyalgan not against the Assessee trust and assessee has duly rebutted such presumption. 14. The Ld. Counsel has also taken us through the statements of Sh. V. Mathiyalgan recorded on oath u/s 131(1A) as well as 132(4) of the Income

SARASWATHI AMMAL EDUCATIONAL AND CHARITABLE TRUST,CHENNAI vs. ACIT CENTRE CIRCLE II, NOIDA

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 132(4A) of the Act, presumption should have been drawn against the said Sh. V. Mathiyalgan not against the Assessee trust and assessee has duly rebutted such presumption. 14. The Ld. Counsel has also taken us through the statements of Sh. V. Mathiyalgan recorded on oath u/s 131(1A) as well as 132(4) of the Income

NATASHA CHOPRA,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 16(1), DELHI

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 132(4A) of the Act, presumption should have been drawn against the said Sh. V. Mathiyalgan not against the Assessee trust and assessee has duly rebutted such presumption. 14. The Ld. Counsel has also taken us through the statements of Sh. V. Mathiyalgan recorded on oath u/s 131(1A) as well as 132(4) of the Income

NATASHA CHOPRA,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-16(1), DELHI

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 132(4A) of the Act, presumption should have been drawn against the said Sh. V. Mathiyalgan not against the Assessee trust and assessee has duly rebutted such presumption. 14. The Ld. Counsel has also taken us through the statements of Sh. V. Mathiyalgan recorded on oath u/s 131(1A) as well as 132(4) of the Income