DR. PRANNOY ROY,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

1 in the return of income short-term capital gain to be RS. 1.27 2 assessed 3. The perusal of the return indicates that neither long-term capital gain nor short-term capital gain has been disclosed. I, therefore, have reason to believe that on account of failure on the part of the assessee to disclose truly and fully

DR. PRANNOY ROY,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

1 in the return of income short-term capital gain to be RS. 1.27 2 assessed 3. The perusal of the return indicates that neither long-term capital gain nor short-term capital gain has been disclosed. I, therefore, have reason to believe that on account of failure on the part of the assessee to disclose truly and fully

SMT. RADHIKA ROY,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

1 in the return of income short-term capital gain to be RS. 1.27 2 assessed 3. The perusal of the return indicates that neither long-term capital gain nor short-term capital gain has been disclosed. I, therefore, have reason to believe that on account of failure on the part of the assessee to disclose truly and fully

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. DR. PRANNOY ROY, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

1 in the return of income short-term capital gain to be RS. 1.27 2 assessed 3. The perusal of the return indicates that neither long-term capital gain nor short-term capital gain has been disclosed. I, therefore, have reason to believe that on account of failure on the part of the assessee to disclose truly and fully

SANJEEV KUMAR AGGARWAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 6, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 2 ITA.No.2871/Del./2018 Shri Sanjeev Kumar Aggarwal, New Delhi. 2. We have heard the Learned Representatives of both the parties and perused the material available on record. 3. Briefly the facts of the case are that search and seizure action under section 132 of the I.T. Act was carried

MR. SUNIL GOYAL,NOIDA vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

Appeal is disposed of in accordance with the aforesaid directions

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

section 28(va) of the Act. 2.2 For the sake of convenience, the findings recorded by the Ld.AO in this regard are being extracted as below – 3. Long term capital gains from sale of shares of M/s Momentum India Pvt Ltd:- During the relevant previous year, the assessee has sold 24800 shares of M/s Momentum India Pvt Ltd (MIPL). These

MAMTA AGARWAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-19, NEW DELHI

132(1) of the Act, the provision of section 153A of the Act could not be applied in a case where no incriminating evidence or material Gopal Agarwal & Ors. Vs. ITO had been found in search, the additions made were beyond the scope of section 153A of the Act. 2 That learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) -27, New Delhi

SUMAN AGARWAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 19, NEW DELHI

132(1) of the Act, the provision of section 153A of the Act could not be applied in a case where no incriminating evidence or material Gopal Agarwal & Ors. Vs. ITO had been found in search, the additions made were beyond the scope of section 153A of the Act. 2 That learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) -27, New Delhi

GOPAL AGARWAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 19, NEW DELHI

132(1) of the Act, the provision of section 153A of the Act could not be applied in a case where no incriminating evidence or material Gopal Agarwal & Ors. Vs. ITO had been found in search, the additions made were beyond the scope of section 153A of the Act. 2 That learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) -27, New Delhi

KUMAR AGARWAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 19 , NEW DELHI

132(1) of the Act, the provision of section 153A of the Act could not be applied in a case where no incriminating evidence or material Gopal Agarwal & Ors. Vs. ITO had been found in search, the additions made were beyond the scope of section 153A of the Act. 2 That learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) -27, New Delhi

RAJ GOPAL AGARWAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 19, NEW DELHI

132(1) of the Act, the provision of section 153A of the Act could not be applied in a case where no incriminating evidence or material Gopal Agarwal & Ors. Vs. ITO had been found in search, the additions made were beyond the scope of section 153A of the Act. 2 That learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) -27, New Delhi

TELETUBE ELECTRONICS LTD

The appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Section 50B (1) profits or gains arising from a slump sale would be chargeable to income tax as capital gains arising from the transfer of long 2015:DHC:8039-DB ITA Nos. 38 of 2002 & 132

CIT vs. M/S TELETUBE ELECTRONICS LTD

The appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Section 50B (1) profits or gains arising from a slump sale would be chargeable to income tax as capital gains arising from the transfer of long 2015:DHC:8039-DB ITA Nos. 38 of 2002 & 132

TELETUBE ELECTRONICS LTD

The appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Section 50B (1) profits or gains arising from a slump sale would be chargeable to income tax as capital gains arising from the transfer of long 2015:DHC:8039-DB ITA Nos. 38 of 2002 & 132

RICHMOND EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,NOIDA vs. DCIT/ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, GHAZIABAD, GHAZIABAD

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

capital of that concern, the exemption under section 11 or section 12 shall not be denied in relation to any income other than the income arising to the trust or the institution from such investment, by reason only that the funds of the trust or the institution have been invested in a concern in which such person has a substantial

SUMITOMO CORPORATION,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), NEW DELHI

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble(Through Video Conferencing) Sumitomo Corporation Vs Dcit (International Taxation) G-195, Circle-3(1)(2) Sarita Vihar New Delhi New Delhi Aabcs6011P (Appellant) (Respondent)

capital gain referred in para 3.2 to 3.5. 5. That the learned AO has erroneously stated that the reasons mentioned in the order may be treated as satisfactory for initiating penalty proceedings under section 271 (1 )(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and concealment of particular of income with respect to the additions made. 6. That

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)

132 ITR 150 (Cal), Calcutta High Court held that where a taxpayer spends capital gain partly for purchase of another house and partly for further construction on it, he is still entitled to exemption u/s 54. Section 54 contemplates fulfillment of two alternate conditions viz purchase or construction, but where both the conditions are fulfilled within the time stipulated

SAJAN KUMAR JAIN,DELHI vs. DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-25, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

1,55,06,771/- for the year under consideration with reference to his books and accounts and was also asked why the entire capital gain should not be added to his income under consideration. In response to the same, assessee filed his reply dated 27.11.2017 denying the allegation leveled by the AO and submitted that this capital gain had arisen