DEVIDAYAL ALUMINIUM INDUSTRIES (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, GHAZIABAD

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganesh

capital gains at all has accrued as no transfer has taken place within the meaning of section 2(47)(v) of the Act has taken place. In support of the above submissions reliance has placed on the following decisions by the appellant: 6. C. S. Atwal vs. CIT Ludhiana & Another (2015) 59 Taxman.com 359 (P & H) : There

DEVIDAYAL ALUMINIUM INDUSTRIES (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, GHAZIABAD

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganesh

capital gains at all has accrued as no transfer has taken place within the meaning of section 2(47)(v) of the Act has taken place. In support of the above submissions reliance has placed on the following decisions by the appellant: 6. C. S. Atwal vs. CIT Ludhiana & Another (2015) 59 Taxman.com 359 (P & H) : There

KUSUM SAHGAL,GURUGRAM vs. ACIT,CIRCLE-19(2), DELHI

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

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2016-17 Kusum Sahgal, Through Lr Shri Vs. Acit, Circle-19(2), Viney Sagar Sahgal, New Delhi Mg-2002, The Magnolias, Golf Course Road Dlf Phase-V, Gurugram, 122 002 Haryana Pan :Aatps3766J (Appellant) (Respondent)

capital gain is invested in purchasing a residential house or constructing the residential house within the time stipulated therein. Proviso to sub-section (1) states that the exemption contemplated under sub-section (1) would not be available where an assessee owns a residential house as on the date of the transfer and that the income from the residential house

ANIL KUMAR,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-30, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the five appeals of the respective assessees are

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2019-20

Section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”), dated 20.05.2021 passed by ACIT, Central Circle-30, Delhi for the common assessment year 2019-20. 2. Common issue is involved in all the five appeals on account of Long Term Capital Gain on sale of property which was a joint property of the five

RAMESH CHAND,DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-30, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the five appeals of the respective assessees are

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2019-20

Section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”), dated 20.05.2021 passed by ACIT, Central Circle-30, Delhi for the common assessment year 2019-20. 2. Common issue is involved in all the five appeals on account of Long Term Capital Gain on sale of property which was a joint property of the five

SUMIT DANG,DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 30, DELHI

In the result, all the five appeals of the respective assessees are

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2019-20

Section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”), dated 20.05.2021 passed by ACIT, Central Circle-30, Delhi for the common assessment year 2019-20. 2. Common issue is involved in all the five appeals on account of Long Term Capital Gain on sale of property which was a joint property of the five

RAJEEV KUMAR,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-30, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the five appeals of the respective assessees are

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2019-20

Section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”), dated 20.05.2021 passed by ACIT, Central Circle-30, Delhi for the common assessment year 2019-20. 2. Common issue is involved in all the five appeals on account of Long Term Capital Gain on sale of property which was a joint property of the five

ANIL DUA,NEW DELHI vs. PCIT -10, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2018-19 Anil Dua Vs. Pcit -10 F-13, Kailash Colony, New Delhi-110002 New Delhi-110048 Pan :Aacpd8370L (Appellant) (Respondent)

capital gain out of the income on sale of property and deduction under Section 54 claimed thereon does not and cannot arise at all. On revision order passed under Section 263 of the Act is, therefore, not legally sustainable and liable to be quashed. The judgment passed by the Hon’ble High Court at Delhi in the case of PCIT

VACHASPATI SHARMA,GURGAON vs. ITO WARD -4(1), GURGAON

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2019-20 Vachaspati Sharma Vs Ito Village – Hayatpur Garhi Ward-4 Harsaru, Hayatpur, Gurgaon Gurgaon Pan No.Fnqps2021R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellants By Sh. Suraj Bhan Nain, Advocate Sh. K.L. Pahwa, Advocate Respondent By Ms. Sapna Bhatia, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 11/09/2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 21/11/2024 Order Sh. Sudhir Kumar, Jm :

1A), 23(2), 28 and 34 of the 1894 Act. As discussed hereinabove, Section 23(1-A) provides for additional amount. It takes care of the increase in the value at the rate of 12% per annum. Similarly, under Section 23(2) of the 1894 Act there is a provision for solatium which also represents part of the enhanced compensation

LAND ACQUISTION OFFICE,GURGAON vs. DCIT (TDS), GURGAON

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

1A) of the Act for assessment year 2012-13. 3. Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee reiterated its stand and filed an affidavit stating that the entire interest had been paid on enhanced compensation under section 28 of the LA Act and no amount of interest was paid under section 34 of the LA Act and that the interest

LAND ACQUISTION OFFICE,GURGAON vs. DCIT (TDS), GURGAON

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

1A) of the Act for assessment year 2012-13. 3. Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee reiterated its stand and filed an affidavit stating that the entire interest had been paid on enhanced compensation under section 28 of the LA Act and no amount of interest was paid under section 34 of the LA Act and that the interest

LAND ACQUISTION OFFICE,GURGAON vs. DCIT (TDS), GURGAON

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

1A) of the Act for assessment year 2012-13. 3. Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee reiterated its stand and filed an affidavit stating that the entire interest had been paid on enhanced compensation under section 28 of the LA Act and no amount of interest was paid under section 34 of the LA Act and that the interest

KRISHNA DEVI,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO, WARD- 1(3), GHAZIABAD

Bench: SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

gain. The assessee has sold both the properties to M/s I. M. A. Private Limited, 26A, Sector-31, Kasna Industrial Area, Greater Noida through Authorized Signaturory Shri Pawan Kumar Sarswat. During the course of appellate proceedings the assessee has submitted that the land is not capital assets with the definition of section 2(14) of I. T.Act., 1961. Further

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, NOIDA vs. RAGHAV BAHL, NOIDA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal

Capital Gain and balance amount is deleted All the grounds of appeal relating to this addition are adjudicated accordingly.” 12. As observed above, Ld.CIT(A) has passed his findings on the basis of the details of acquisition made by the assessee of the shares sold during the year in 04 trenches and all the necessary details alongwith evidences are filed

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, NOIDA, NOIDA vs. RAGHAV BAHL, NOIDA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal

Capital Gain and balance amount is deleted All the grounds of appeal relating to this addition are adjudicated accordingly.” 12. As observed above, Ld.CIT(A) has passed his findings on the basis of the details of acquisition made by the assessee of the shares sold during the year in 04 trenches and all the necessary details alongwith evidences are filed

MR RAHUL MISHRA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VIII NEW DELHI

The appeal is dismissed in limine

Section 271 (1)(c) of the Act. In the penalty order, it is recorded as under:- . ?In his original return, the assessee has claimed short term loss of Rs.4,52,00,000/- on sale of shares and has set off this loss from the long term capital gain arisen to him from sale of shares of M/s. Karamchand Domestic Products

LAND ACQUISITION OFFICE,GURGAON vs. DCIT, (TDS), GURGAON

Appeal is allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2013-14 Vs. Dcit (Tds), Land Acquisition Officer, Huda Complex, Sector-14, Gurgaon Gurgaon Pan :Rtklo0706G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By None Department By Ms. Jaya Choudhary, Cit(Dr)

1A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). 2. Case called twice. None appeared at the assessee’s behest. We accordingly proceeded ex-parte against him. 3. It is next noticed with the able assistance coming from the Revenue side that the CIT(A) has declined the assessee’s lower appeal in limine

ITO, WARD-4(4), GURGAON vs. TRIBHAWAN KUMAR PARNAMI, GURGAON

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

gains arising from sale/transfer of a capital asset, business income arising from sale or transfer of the specified assets or in any instance of an individual acquiring the corresponding immovable property (ies), as the case may be, already prescribed 5% of the tolerance margin in the corresponding statutory “proviso” which stands enhanced to “10%” thereof vide Finance Act 2020 w.e.f