ROOP KUMAR BANSAL,GURGAON vs. PR,CIT (CENTRAL), GURGAON

In the result, ITA.No.383/Del

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

capital gains of Rs.7,37,78,840/-. The A.O. on these facts proceeded to frame assessment under section 153B read with section 143(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961 Dated 18.12.2018 in the present case and has accepted the returned income after examining the issue in detail after calling for the 68 ITA.Nos.383, 384, 385 & 386/Del./2021 Smt. Abha

SHRI BASANT BANSAL,GURGAON vs. PR,CIT (CENTRAL), GURGAON

In the result, ITA.No.383/Del

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

capital gains of Rs.7,37,78,840/-. The A.O. on these facts proceeded to frame assessment under section 153B read with section 143(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961 Dated 18.12.2018 in the present case and has accepted the returned income after examining the issue in detail after calling for the 68 ITA.Nos.383, 384, 385 & 386/Del./2021 Smt. Abha

ABHA BANSAL,GURGAON vs. PCIT, CENTRAL, GURGAON

In the result, ITA.No.383/Del

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

capital gains of Rs.7,37,78,840/-. The A.O. on these facts proceeded to frame assessment under section 153B read with section 143(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961 Dated 18.12.2018 in the present case and has accepted the returned income after examining the issue in detail after calling for the 68 ITA.Nos.383, 384, 385 & 386/Del./2021 Smt. Abha

Date of order: 9th November, 2011 vs. ASHA DALMIA

Section 144A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act, for short), held that the said amount was taxable as income from other sources. According to the Assessing Officer, as the assessee has no tenancy right to transfer, the income cannot possibly be charged under the head of “Capital Gains

DEV MILK FOODS PVT LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT SPECIAL RANGE-3, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishidev Milk Foods Pvt. Ltd. Add. Cit, C/O Kapil Goel Advocate, Special Range -3 F-26/124, Sector-7, Vs. New Delhi. Rohini, Delhi-110085. Pan –Aaccd 2586M (Appellant) (Respondent)

capital gains had been offered to tax. The Ld. Authorized Representative drew our attention to the aforesaid CBDT Instruction wherein it has been stated that while forming the reasonable view, the Assessing Officer has to ensure that there existed credible material or information available on record for forming such view and that the reasonable view should not be based

M R APPARELS P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. PRCIT-6, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

gain income generated out of this transaction and to bring the same under tax net, as per the provisions of the i. T. Act. Effect to this order may be given forthwith. 4. The arguments of the ld. AR and the written submissions are as under: 1.Background of the case a. The assessee company has filed its income tax return

SHRI INAMUL HAQ,SAHARANPUR vs. ITO, SAHARANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2009-10 Shri Inamul Haq S/O Sh. Mohd. Vs. Income Tax Officer, Yamin, Vill.Megh Chhappar, Ward-2. Ambalaa Road, Saharanpur (U.P) Saharanpur Pan: Aaiph2840K (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 54F claimed by the assessee against the Long Term Capital Gain is as under: “a) That, in the year under consideration, the assessee has sold the immovable property of Rs.41,57,100.00, which has circle value at Rs.51,73,925.00, which has been added by the assessing officer U/s 50C and the same has not been challenged

JAGDISH PARSHAD JAIN,PANIPAT vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE KARNAL, KARNAL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2009-10 Shri Inamul Haq S/O Sh. Mohd. Vs. Income Tax Officer, Yamin, Vill.Megh Chhappar, Ward-2. Ambalaa Road, Saharanpur (U.P) Saharanpur Pan: Aaiph2840K (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 54F claimed by the assessee against the Long Term Capital Gain is as under: “a) That, in the year under consideration, the assessee has sold the immovable property of Rs.41,57,100.00, which has circle value at Rs.51,73,925.00, which has been added by the assessing officer U/s 50C and the same has not been challenged

RAJESH KUMAR,HISAR vs. CIT, HISAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2008-09 Shri Rajesh Kumar, Vs. Cit, 1931, Gate No. 2, Behind Hisar M.G. Road, Hisar Pan :Aohpk1201L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Manoj Kumar, Adv. Respondent By Smt. Sulekha Verma, Cit(Dr)

gain will be declared in the year of transfer and on receipt of full money. Hence, the order under 263 may be vacated. 3 2. Briefly stated facts of the case as culled out from the order of the lower authorities as well as submission of the assessee are that the assessee, an individual, filed return of income for first

MEERA GOYAL,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD-10(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and that of assessee is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Kuldip Singhdr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 8239/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Meera Goyal, Vs Income Tax Officer, B-45, Maharani Bagh, Ward-10(2), New Delhi-110065 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Agqpg7373J

capital gains on sale of the such property in future, not appreciating the fact that the said section is meant to apply to genuine transactions and therefore, where the act of forfeiture is being used as a device in view of similar forfeiture in respect of the same property in the past, the AO was justified in treating the amount

ITO WARD-10(2), NEW DELHI vs. MEERA GOYAL, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and that of assessee is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Kuldip Singhdr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 8239/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Meera Goyal, Vs Income Tax Officer, B-45, Maharani Bagh, Ward-10(2), New Delhi-110065 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Agqpg7373J

capital gains on sale of the such property in future, not appreciating the fact that the said section is meant to apply to genuine transactions and therefore, where the act of forfeiture is being used as a device in view of similar forfeiture in respect of the same property in the past, the AO was justified in treating the amount

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. HIMANSHU VERMA, DELHI

In the result all the appeals filed by the Revenue and Assessee are dismissed

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

capital gain and that he was managing and controlling a number of companies/firms/sole proprietorship concerns and a number of bank accounts in the name of these entities in different banks. The Assessing Officer in the assessment order had detailed the modus operandi of the appellant adopted for providing accommodation entries and held him to be an accommodation entry operator

SH. HIMANSHU VERMA,DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result all the appeals filed by the Revenue and Assessee are dismissed

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

capital gain and that he was managing and controlling a number of companies/firms/sole proprietorship concerns and a number of bank accounts in the name of these entities in different banks. The Assessing Officer in the assessment order had detailed the modus operandi of the appellant adopted for providing accommodation entries and held him to be an accommodation entry operator

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. HIMANSHU VERMA, DELHI

In the result all the appeals filed by the Revenue and Assessee are dismissed

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

capital gain and that he was managing and controlling a number of companies/firms/sole proprietorship concerns and a number of bank accounts in the name of these entities in different banks. The Assessing Officer in the assessment order had detailed the modus operandi of the appellant adopted for providing accommodation entries and held him to be an accommodation entry operator

SH. HIMANSHU VERMA,DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result all the appeals filed by the Revenue and Assessee are dismissed

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

capital gain and that he was managing and controlling a number of companies/firms/sole proprietorship concerns and a number of bank accounts in the name of these entities in different banks. The Assessing Officer in the assessment order had detailed the modus operandi of the appellant adopted for providing accommodation entries and held him to be an accommodation entry operator

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. HIMANSHU VERMA, DELHI

In the result all the appeals filed by the Revenue and Assessee are dismissed

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

capital gain and that he was managing and controlling a number of companies/firms/sole proprietorship concerns and a number of bank accounts in the name of these entities in different banks. The Assessing Officer in the assessment order had detailed the modus operandi of the appellant adopted for providing accommodation entries and held him to be an accommodation entry operator

SH. HIMANSHU VERMA,DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result all the appeals filed by the Revenue and Assessee are dismissed

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

capital gain and that he was managing and controlling a number of companies/firms/sole proprietorship concerns and a number of bank accounts in the name of these entities in different banks. The Assessing Officer in the assessment order had detailed the modus operandi of the appellant adopted for providing accommodation entries and held him to be an accommodation entry operator

CIT vs. MEERA GOYAL

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

section 144A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 had been given by the Addl. Commissioner on a reference being made by the assessee under that provision in relation to the proceedings for the assessment year 2007-08. The directions given were, inter alia, as under: ITA 1263/2011 Page 4 of 6 “In the light of above observation, forfeited amount

M/S HAVELLS INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishihavells India Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 1/7 Ram Kishore Road, Circle-12(1), Civil Lines, New Delhi Cr Building Ip Estate, Pan: Aaach0351E New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Havells India Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 1/7 Ram Kishore Road, Ltu, Nbcc Plaza, Civil Lines, New Delhi Pusp Vihar, Sector-4, Saket, Pan: Aaach0351E New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit (Ltu), Vs. Havells India Ltd, Nbcc Plaza, Pusp Vihar, Sector- 1/7 Ram Kishore Road, 4, Saket, New Delhi Civil Lines, New Delhi Pan: Aaach0351E (Appellant) (Respondent)

144A direction and the ld CIT (A) in his order are neither distinguished nor challenged by the ld AR and therefore, same are accepted and therefore claim of the assessee that it is revenue expenditure cannot be allowed. 16. He further stated that the alternative submission of the assessee that depreciation on it should be allowed clearly shows that