COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. ECE INDUSTRIES LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.SIKRI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT

sections 54, 54B, 54D, 54E, 54EA, 54EB, 54F, 54G and 54H be chargeable to income-tax under the head "Capital gains", and shall be deemed to be the income of the previous year in which the transfer took place. (1A

NEELU ANALJIT SINGH,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL.CIT, SPECIAL RANGE-9, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed with above directions

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishimrs. Neelu Analjit Singh, Vs. The Addl. Commissioner Of 15, Dr. Apj Abdul Kalam Road, Income Tax , New Delhi Special Range-9, Pan: Aatps06882D New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent)

capital gains) is the charging section and for the period under consideration the said provisions did not provide any mandate to the AO to replace/substitute the actual sale consideration with any alleged fair market value. 13. That the CIT(A) grossly erred in law in not appreciating that the provisions of subsection (1A

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. ECE Industries Limited

sections 54, 54B, 54D, 54E, 54EA, 54EB, 54F, 54G and 54H be chargeable to income-tax under the head "Capital gains", and shall be deemed to be the income of the previous year in which the transfer took place. (1A

MR. SUNIL GOYAL,NOIDA vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

Appeal is disposed of in accordance with the aforesaid directions

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

section 28(va) of the Act. 2.2 For the sake of convenience, the findings recorded by the Ld.AO in this regard are being extracted as below – 3. Long term capital gains from sale of shares of M/s Momentum India Pvt Ltd:- During the relevant previous year, the assessee has sold 24800 shares of M/s Momentum India Pvt Ltd (MIPL). These

ACIT, GURGAON vs. M/S. THE SCIENTIFIC & EDUCATIONAL ADVANCEMENT SOCIETY, GURGAON

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini, J.M. & Shri L.P. Sahu, A.M.

Section-11(1A) which requires capital gains to be reinvested in another capital asset to avoid tax on capital gains

M/S. SCIENTIFIC AND EDUCATIONAL ADVANCEMENT SOCIETY,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, GURGAON

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini, J.M. & Shri L.P. Sahu, A.M.

Section-11(1A) which requires capital gains to be reinvested in another capital asset to avoid tax on capital gains

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHARDA KOCHHAR

The appeal is disposed of,

1A) and solatium under section 23(2) of the 1894 Act forms part of enhanced compensation under section 45(5)(b) of the 1961 Act. In fact, what we have stated hereinabove is reinforced by the newly inserted clause (c) in section 45(5) by the Finance Act, 2003, with effect from April 1, 2004. This newly added clause envisages

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI vs. MS SUMAN DHAMIJA

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

Capital Gains" and that the taxpayer has claimed exemption in whole or in part by complying with legal provisions. (ii) Interest under Section 28 is part of the amount of compensation whereas interest under Section 34 is only for delay in making payment after the compensation amount is determined. Interest under Section 28 is a part of enhanced value

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI vs. MS SUMAN DHAMIJA

Capital Gains" and that the taxpayer has claimed exemption in whole or in part by complying with legal provisions. (ii) Interest under Section 28 is part of the amount of compensation whereas interest under Section 34 is only for delay in making payment after the compensation amount is determined. Interest under Section 28 is a part of enhanced value

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI vs. MS. SUMAN DHAMIJA

Capital Gains" and that the taxpayer has claimed exemption in whole or in part by complying with legal provisions. (ii) Interest under Section 28 is part of the amount of compensation whereas interest under Section 34 is only for delay in making payment after the compensation amount is determined. Interest under Section 28 is a part of enhanced value

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI vs. MS. SUMAN DHAMIJA

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

Capital Gains" and that the taxpayer has claimed exemption in whole or in part by complying with legal provisions. (ii) Interest under Section 28 is part of the amount of compensation whereas interest under Section 34 is only for delay in making payment after the compensation amount is determined. Interest under Section 28 is a part of enhanced value

UMA SINGAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRL CIRCLE-3, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

section 68 of the above sum confirming assessment order passed by the learned assessing officer. Several judicial precedents were relied up on. Decision of the Hon‘ble Bombay High Court, Nagpur bench in case of Sanjay Bimal Chand Jain dated 10/4/2017 was relied upon heavily. He further upheld the addition of 6% because of payment of commission in cash

RITU SINGAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 3, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

section 68 of the above sum confirming assessment order passed by the learned assessing officer. Several judicial precedents were relied up on. Decision of the Hon‘ble Bombay High Court, Nagpur bench in case of Sanjay Bimal Chand Jain dated 10/4/2017 was relied upon heavily. He further upheld the addition of 6% because of payment of commission in cash

THE SOCIETY OF THE SISTERS OF OTHE DISTIITUTE,DELHI vs. ACIT,CPC, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 5372/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 The Society Of The Sisters Of The Vs Acit, Destitute, Jivodaya Hospital, Ashok Cpc, Vihar, New Delhi-110052 Bangalore (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aacts9595A Assessee By : Sh. Raman Murali, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Prakash Dubey, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 26.07.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.08.2021

1A) For the purposes of sub-section (1),- (a) where a capital asset, being property held under trust wholly for charitable or religious purposes, is transferred and the whole or any part of the net consideration is utilized for acquiring another capital asset to be so held, then, the capital gain

CHANDER KALAN,DELHI vs. NEAC, DELHI

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

capitals gains under Section 45 (5) (b) of the Act and by virtue of Section 10 (37) of the Act is not chargeable to tax. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in CIT vs. Ghanshyam (HUF), [2009] 182 Taxman 368 (SC) wherein the Court made the following observations

CONTINENTAL CONSTRUCTION LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri P. Maharishi & Vs Continental Construction Acit, Ltd, 28, Nehru Place, Circle – 3(1), New Delhi – 110019. Room No.390, C.R. Building, (Pan: Aaacc 2309 R) Indraprastha Estate, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) & Vs Acit, Continental Construction Ltd, Circle – 3(1), 28, Nehru Place, New Delhi – 110019. Room No.390, C.R. (Pan: Aaacc 2309 R) Building, Indraprastha Estate, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Subodh Gupta, Fca Respondent By Ms. Nidhi Srivastava, Cit-D.R. Date Of Hearing 14.08.2020 Date Of Pronouncement 23.09.2020

1A), inserted w.e.f. 1.4.2000 stipulates compensations from Insurers for loss/ destruction of assets is to be brought to tax in the year of actual receipt. Though said section is not equally applicable in case of the assessee but a reasonable parallel can easily be drawn on same facts & circumstances. Similarly according to provisions of sub-section (1) of section

ITO (E), GHAZIABAD vs. M/S. DAYANAND PUSHPA DEVI CHARITABLE TRUST, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: : Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year: 2013-14

gain on the sale of capital asset, only a sum of Rs.1,96,73,000/- has been considered. The Assessing Officer observed that the assessee has not acquired any new capital asset within the provisions of section 11(1A

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4 vs. GOMANTAK EXIMIS LTD.,

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA

capital gains on such agricultural lands situated within the municipal area would not be exigible to tax. The provision enabling such inclusion was found to be ultra vires. On appeal, the hon'ble Supreme Court in S. Muthiyam Reddy (supra), noticed the Explanation brought into the definition clause ; to find that it takes away the whole basis of the decision