SMT. HARMINDER KAUR,,NEW DELHI vs. ITO,, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant[Through Video Conferencing]

section 139(4) of the Act, there is no requirement to deposit the amount in capital gain scheme. According to her, the section

GOPAL SARAN DARBARI,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahu

section (1) and the due date for furnishing the return of income uls 139(1) is subject to the extended period provided ills 139(4) and hence the extended period uls 139(4) has to be considered for the purposes of utilization of the capital gain

GOPAL SARAN DARBARI,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahu

section (1) and the due date for furnishing the return of income uls 139(1) is subject to the extended period provided ills 139(4) and hence the extended period uls 139(4) has to be considered for the purposes of utilization of the capital gain

CHANDER KANTA MAHESHWARI L/H OF LATE SHRI ASHOK KUMAR MAHESHWARI ,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 35(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the Assesseeis allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Pandaa N D Shri N. K. Choudhry(Through Video Conferencing)

gains by purchase of a house property within the stipulated period of section 54(2) i.e., before the extended due date for return under section 139 theassessee technically may have defaulted in not filing the return under section 139(4). But, however, utilized the capital

DCIT, CIRCLE-II(I) vs. I.F.C.I. LTD.,,

In the result ITA number 2205/Del/2005 filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi

139 (3) cannot be revised and therefore no cognizance is taken of the revised return filed by the assessee. Therefore the learned assessing officer computed the total income of the assessee taking the original return of income filed at ₹ 447,70,92,030 and determined the total income of the assessee at ₹ 2,202,089,491/– by passing an order

IFCI LTD. vs. ADDL. CIT, CIRCLE-11(1),,

In the result ITA number 2205/Del/2005 filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi

139 (3) cannot be revised and therefore no cognizance is taken of the revised return filed by the assessee. Therefore the learned assessing officer computed the total income of the assessee taking the original return of income filed at ₹ 447,70,92,030 and determined the total income of the assessee at ₹ 2,202,089,491/– by passing an order

KAPIL KUMAR AGARWAL,GURGAON vs. DCIT, GURGAON

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishikapil Kumar Agarwal, Vs. Dcit, C/O. Ipsaa House Anm & Circle-1(1), Associates, J021A, Mayfiled Gurgaoon Gardens, Sector-51, Gurgaon Pan: Aacpa2412L (Appellant) (Respondent)

gains from transfer of any long-term capital not being a residential house could claim benefit under the said Section provided, any one of the following three conditions were satisfied; (i) the assessee had within a period of one year before the sale, purchased a residential house; (ii) within two years after the date of transfer of the original capital

RAJ KUMAR,NEW DELHI vs. ITO,WARD-58(4), DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amitabh Shukla

capital gain is not payable. The judgments in Rajesh Kumar Jalan’s case and Fathima Bai’s case (supra) were referred to. It has been held as under:- "Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that sub-section (4) of Section 139

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)

capital gains taxation by the AO 6.1 Broad view of Essar Group Company forming part of Para 11 (page 24-27) ECL the existing arrangement Para 11 (page 23-25) ECOM 6.2 Moving of holding Essar Group in Indian Telecom Para 12 (page 27-33) ECL Business from Onshore to offshore Para 12 (page 26-31) ECOM 6.3 Acquisition

SMT. RITU SINGH,DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2012-13

section 139(5) even though he made no deposits of un-invested capital gain in capital gains account scheme on or before

RRPR HOLDING PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, Grounds No

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

Sections 80, 139(3) and other provisions of the Act and refused to admit the claim of Long Term Capital Loss and consequently carry forward thereof for set off against the income of the later years was denied. The AO noted that there is not even an iota of reference of any transaction involving any capital gains

SMT. VATSALA ASTHANA,,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2012-13 Smt. Vatsala Asthana, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Dc-97, Maya Enclave, Hari Ward-49(4), New Delhi Nagar, New Delhi Pan :Aefpa4935D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Sanjeev Jain, Ca Respondent By Shri G. Johnson, Sr.Dr

capital gains scheme within the due date of filing of belated tax return under section 139(4), the capital gains

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

139(1) of the Act declaring income of Rs. 11,80,381/- for the instant assessment year, wherein he had claimed exemption of Rs. 9,52,493.73/- u/s 10(38) of the Act. This exemption represented long term capital gain on sale of shares of M/s KGN Industries Ltd. The original return stood accepted as such. The AO, while denying

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

139(1) of the Act declaring income of Rs. 11,80,381/- for the instant assessment year, wherein he had claimed exemption of Rs. 9,52,493.73/- u/s 10(38) of the Act. This exemption represented long term capital gain on sale of shares of M/s KGN Industries Ltd. The original return stood accepted as such. The AO, while denying

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

139(1) of the Act declaring income of Rs. 11,80,381/- for the instant assessment year, wherein he had claimed exemption of Rs. 9,52,493.73/- u/s 10(38) of the Act. This exemption represented long term capital gain on sale of shares of M/s KGN Industries Ltd. The original return stood accepted as such. The AO, while denying

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

139(1) of the Act declaring income of Rs. 11,80,381/- for the instant assessment year, wherein he had claimed exemption of Rs. 9,52,493.73/- u/s 10(38) of the Act. This exemption represented long term capital gain on sale of shares of M/s KGN Industries Ltd. The original return stood accepted as such. The AO, while denying

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

139(1) of the Act declaring income of Rs. 11,80,381/- for the instant assessment year, wherein he had claimed exemption of Rs. 9,52,493.73/- u/s 10(38) of the Act. This exemption represented long term capital gain on sale of shares of M/s KGN Industries Ltd. The original return stood accepted as such. The AO, while denying

ITO,WARD-30(1), NEW DELHI vs. VINOD GUGNANI, NEW DELHI

In the result, grounds of Appeal of the Revenue fails, consequently the Appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri B. R. R. Kumar & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.

gains account scheme before the due date prescribed under Section 139(1) of the IT Act? 4. Re.Point No.1 Section 54(F) deals with capital