MR. NIKHIL SAWHNEY,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NOIDA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishimr. Nikhil Sawhney Acit, 17 – Sunder Nagar, Central Circle, Vs. New Delhi – 110 003. Noida. Pan: Aaups0222Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

capital asset, being an equity share in a company or a unit of an equity oriented fund where— (a) the transaction of sale of such equity share or unit is entered into on or after the date on which Chapter VII of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2004 comes into force3; and (b) such transaction is chargeable to securities transaction

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)

4 of Section 139 of the Act. It was held as under:- “From a plain reading of sub-section (2) of Section 54 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, it is clear that only section 139 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is mentioned in section 54(2) in the context that the unutilized portion 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

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

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

4) of Section 139 of the Act is in fact a proviso to Section 139(1) of the Act. Therefore, since the assessee has invested the sale proceeds in a residential house within the extended period of limitation, the capital gain

ROHTASH SINGH,GURGAON vs. DCIT, GURGAON

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

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

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

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

4,477,092,030/– which was revised on 13/3/2003 at ₹ 5,284,958,251. The learned assessing officer noted that the assessee has revised return of loss filed u/s 139 (3) and only return filed u/s 139 (1) can be revised. Therefore according to him the return filed u/s 139 (3) cannot be revised and therefore no cognizance is taken

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

4,477,092,030/– which was revised on 13/3/2003 at ₹ 5,284,958,251. The learned assessing officer noted that the assessee has revised return of loss filed u/s 139 (3) and only return filed u/s 139 (1) can be revised. Therefore according to him the return filed u/s 139 (3) cannot be revised and therefore no cognizance is taken

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

4)/revised return under section 139(5) even though he made no deposits of un-invested capital gain in capital

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. SH. HARISH CHANDER KHULLAR, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahua.Y. : 2006-07 Income Tax Officer, Sh. Harish Chander Khullar, Ward 27(2), Vs. E-88-B, Mansarover Garden, Room No. 1909, New Delhi – 110 015 E-2 Block, Civic Centre, (Pan: Aafpk8788A) Minto Road, New Delhi – 110 001 (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 4 of 139 of the I T Act. The Assessing Officer has erred in disallowing the exemption on the long term capital gain

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. 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

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

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

M/S. FIBERFILL ENGINEERS,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra : & Shri A.T. Varkey:Asstt. Yr: 2010-11 M/S Fiberfill Engineers Vs. Acit Circle 38(1), C-9/9574, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi. New Delhi-110070. (New Circle 63(1),Civic Centre, New Delhi. Pan: Aaaff 6313 P ( Appellant ) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Gautam Jain Adv. P. Kamal Adv. Respondent By : Smt. Rehka Vimal Dr Date Of Hearing : 03/02/2016. Date Of Order : 25/02/2016. O R D E R Per S.V. Mehrotra, A.M:

4) to section 139 was not an independent provision, but relates to the time contemplated under sub-sec. (1) of section 139. b. CIT Vs. Rajesh Kumar Jalan 286 ITR 274, wherein it was, inter alia, held that the assessee could fulfill the requirement u/s 54 of the I.T. Act for exemption of the capital gain

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

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

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