HERSH VARDHAN KSHETRY,NOIDA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE INT. TAX. 2(1)(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assesses in ITA 1876/Del/2023, ITA

Bench: Sh. C.N. Prasad & Sh. Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2016-17

Section 142A is not applicable in the facts of the present case. Furthermore, admittedly till date there is no report submitted by the DVO and thus the proceedings are time barred. In any case, in the absence of the report of the DVO, the addition made in the assessment order and the proceedings are also illegal. On merits also

NINA KSHETRY,NOIDA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE INT.TAX. 2(1)(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assesses in ITA 1876/Del/2023, ITA

Bench: Sh. C.N. Prasad & Sh. Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2016-17

Section 142A is not applicable in the facts of the present case. Furthermore, admittedly till date there is no report submitted by the DVO and thus the proceedings are time barred. In any case, in the absence of the report of the DVO, the addition made in the assessment order and the proceedings are also illegal. On merits also

DCIT,, FARIDABAD vs. M/S ECO AUTO COMPONENTS LMITED,, FARIDABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2005-06 Vs. M/S. Eco Auto Components Ltd., Dcit, Faridabad Plot No. 20, Sector-6, Faridabad Pan : Aaace3659C (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Ms. Ashima Neb, Sr. Dr Respondent By Ms. Rano Jain, Adv. & Sh. Ashish Goel, Ca Date Of Hearing 09.01.2018 Date Of Pronouncement 18.01.2018 Order Per O.P. Kant, A.M.:

142A reference could be made in the context of section 69, 69A and 69B of the Act, which deals with the unaccounted assets not recorded in books of accounts, un-recorded investments and investment recorded at lower value respectively and the section does not provide for referring to the DVO for the purpose of computation of capital gain

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. SH. ASHWANI KUMAR MALIK, MEERUT

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra & Smt. Beena Pillai

gains, reference, if any, has necessary to be made u/s 55A of the Act. A perusal of the said section reveals that a case has to fall within either clause (a) or clause (b) of the said section to enable the AO to make a reference. In clause (a), as it is stood in the relevant year, it has been

RENU SINGH,DELHI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, DELHI, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Vimal Kumarshri Vimal Kumar

capital gains based on actual such sale consideration. The AO . The AO on the other hand, alleged that the difference , alleged that the difference between the sale consideration consideration mentioned in Agreement to Sale and Sale Deed mentioned in Agreement to Sale and Sale Deed is undisclosed part of the transaction. The basis of making additions is the he transaction

MADHURITTU PURI,UNITED KINGDOM vs. DCIT, CIRCLE INTERNATIONAL TAXATION 2(2)(2) , NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2019-20

capital gain of her 1/3rd share at Rs. 2,73,33,333/- (page 25 of the Paper Book) which she declared in her return of income filed electronically on 07.08.2019. It was not acceptable to the Ld. AO. In para 3 of the assessment order the Ld. AO observed that the value of the property as on 01.04.2001 which

DILIP KAPUR,UNITED STATES OF AMERICA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 2(1)(2) INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, NEW DELHI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumarshri Sudhir Pareek

capital gain on the basis of report issued by DVO under Section 142A of the Income Tax Act 6. On the facts

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. SMT. URVASHI TALLA, NEW DELHI

In the result the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

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

142A thus was not satisfied in the present case and neither the said reference nor the addition made on the basis of report obtained from the DVO in response to the said reference, in our opinion, was sustainable in Jaw as rightly held by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax tax (Appeals)." 10.12 We further find that similar views were

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. SMT. USHA RANI TALLA, NEW DELHI

In the result the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

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

142A thus was not satisfied in the present case and neither the said reference nor the addition made on the basis of report obtained from the DVO in response to the said reference, in our opinion, was sustainable in Jaw as rightly held by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax tax (Appeals)." 10.12 We further find that similar views were

BIMLA,DELHI vs. ITO WARD-38(5), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareekbimla, Vs. Ito, Ward 38 (5), H.No.143, Village Hamidpur, New Delhi. Delhi – 110 036. (Pan : Bpdpb9344B) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate Shri Ankit Kumar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 18.09.2024 Date Of Order : 26.11.2024 Order Per S.Rifaur Rahman,Am: 1. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax Appeals-13, New Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To ‘Ld. Cit (A)’) Dated 23.07.2019 For Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are, Assessee Filed Return Of Income Declaring Total Income Of Rs.2,23,030/- On 14.08.2014. The Return Of Income Was Processed Under Section 143 (1) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act’). The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny Through Cass & Notices

142A, it is clear that legislature referred to the provisions of Section 69, 69A and 69B but specifically excluded 69C. The principle of casus omissus becomes applicable in a situation like this. What is not included by legislature and rather specifically excluded, cannot be interpreted by the Court through the process of interpretation. The only remedy is to amend

SANGEETA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 53(5), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year: 2010-11 Sangeeta, Vs. Ito, A-190, 3Rd Floor, Ward-53(5), Gautam Nagar, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Blsps7011K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Lokendrajit Paonam, Ca Revenue By : Shri R.K. Gupta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 04.08.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.09.2021 Order

capital gain. 4. In appeal, the assessee filed certain additional evidences before the CIT(A) who forwarded the same to the AO for a remand report. The assessee was confronted with the remand report who filed a rejoinder to the said remand report. After considering the remand report by the AO and the rejoinder of the assessee to such remand

DCIT, CIRCLE 4(2), NEW DELHI vs. BSL SCAFFOLDING LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Dcit, Vs. Bsl Scaffolding Ltd, Sr-1B, 4Th Floor 93, Circle-4(2), New Delhi Ashoka Bhawan, Nehru Place, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aaacb3253B

Section 142A of the Act could be invoked by the Central Processing Centre (CPC) BSL Scaffolding Ltd while processing the return u/s 143(1) of the Act on the ground that the property has been sold at a price less than circle rate. 3. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The assessee filed

ITO (EXEMPTIONS), NEW DELHI vs. DELHI VOCATIONAL SCHOOL SOCIETY, NEW DELHI

In the result the appeal of the revenue on solitary ground is dismissed

Bench: Shri I.C.Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishiito(Exemptions), Vs. Delhi Vocational School Trust Ward-Iii, Aayakar Bhawan, Society, Laxmu Nagar, Distt. Centre, C/O. Summer Fields School, New Delhi Kailash Colony, New Delhi Pan:Aabcs4104H (Appellant) (Respondent)

142A of the Act, as has been rightly held by the Ld. CIT (A)." Page 6 of 10 5. This Court had in the decision reported as CIT v. Dinesh Jain, HUF [2013] 352 ITR 629/[2012] 211 Taxman 23/25 taxmann.com 550 and connected cases occasioned to consider an identical question. After noticing the relevant provision, i.e. Section

SMT. GEETA NARANG,DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Ms Suchitra Kamble

capital gains of Rs.1,29,95,449/-. Out of the sale proceeds, the assessee brought a flat in Noida on 16.07.2012 for a total consideration of Rs.50,00,000/- and a flat in Gurgaon or 12.11.2012 for a total consideration of Rs.2,13,23,510/-. The Assessee claimed deduction u/s 54F of the Act for both the properties

VINOD ANAND,FARIDABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-II,, FARIDABAD

The Appeal is dismissed ex parte

Bench: Dr. B.R.R.Kumar & Sh. Anubhav Sharmash. Vinod Anand Vs. Dcit, House No. 2288, Circle-Ii, Sector-9, Faridabad Faridabad, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent)

capital gain by giving the appellant benefit of cost of construction for Rs.1,46,000/- as on 07.08.2006 . Ground Nos. 3,4,6 and 6 of the appellant are Partly Allowed.” 4. The assessee has come in appeal raising following grounds :- “1) That the impugned order passed u/s 250 of the Income

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-25, NEW DELHI vs. MAHAVEER TRANSMISSION LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result, the all appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Sudhir Kumar

142A of the Act, it is clear that the legislature referred to the provisions of Sec. 69, 69A and 69B of the Act but specifically excluded the provisions of Sec. 69C of the Act. In such a situation the well known principle of casus omissus becomes applicable. In my humble understanding what is not included by the legislature

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-25, NEW DELHI vs. MAHAVEER TRANSMISSION LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the all appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Sudhir Kumar

142A of the Act, it is clear that the legislature referred to the provisions of Sec. 69, 69A and 69B of the Act but specifically excluded the provisions of Sec. 69C of the Act. In such a situation the well known principle of casus omissus becomes applicable. In my humble understanding what is not included by the legislature

MAHAVIR TRANSMISSION LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-25, NEW DELHI

In the result, the all appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Sudhir Kumar

142A of the Act, it is clear that the legislature referred to the provisions of Sec. 69, 69A and 69B of the Act but specifically excluded the provisions of Sec. 69C of the Act. In such a situation the well known principle of casus omissus becomes applicable. In my humble understanding what is not included by the legislature