MR. SANJIV NARAYAN,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year 2005-06

gain. In the appeal proceedings addition was deleted considering appellants arguments that there was no provision in the Income Tax Act to substitute sale consideration with fair market value of a capital asset other than immovable property referred to in section 50C. However it was observed by the Ld. CIT(A) that the real value of shares of Eltek

MR. RANJEET SINGH,GURGAON vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year 2005-06

gain. In the appeal proceedings addition was deleted considering appellants arguments that there was no provision in the Income Tax Act to substitute sale consideration with fair market value of a capital asset other than immovable property referred to in section 50C. However it was observed by the Ld. CIT(A) that the real value of shares of Eltek

MR. KRISHNA KUMAR PANT,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year 2005-06

gain. In the appeal proceedings addition was deleted considering appellants arguments that there was no provision in the Income Tax Act to substitute sale consideration with fair market value of a capital asset other than immovable property referred to in section 50C. However it was observed by the Ld. CIT(A) that the real value of shares of Eltek

MR. J.S. GUJRAL,GURGAON vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year 2005-06

gain. In the appeal proceedings addition was deleted considering appellants arguments that there was no provision in the Income Tax Act to substitute sale consideration with fair market value of a capital asset other than immovable property referred to in section 50C. However it was observed by the Ld. CIT(A) that the real value of shares of Eltek

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)

14),45,47,70,74 needs to be read together with section 10(38) of the IT Act. Section 2(45) defines ―total income‖ means the total amount of income referred to in section 5, computed in the manner laid down in this Act. As per the charging section 4, income-tax shall be charged for any assessment year

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. KUSHAL INFRAPROJECT INDUSTRIES INDIA LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: : Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

Section 2(14)(iii)(a) and not population of any area within the Municipality. The learned D.R. also relied upon Judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs., Deep Chand 257 ITR 756 in which it was held that capital asset, whether capital gain

KAUSHAL INFRAPROJECT INDUSTRIES INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: : Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

Section 2(14)(iii)(a) and not population of any area within the Municipality. The learned D.R. also relied upon Judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs., Deep Chand 257 ITR 756 in which it was held that capital asset, whether capital gain

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. KUSHAL INFRAPROJECT INDUSTRIES INDIA LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: : Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

Section 2(14)(iii)(a) and not population of any area within the Municipality. The learned D.R. also relied upon Judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs., Deep Chand 257 ITR 756 in which it was held that capital asset, whether capital gain

KAUSHAL INFRAPROJECT INDUSTRIES INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: : Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

Section 2(14)(iii)(a) and not population of any area within the Municipality. The learned D.R. also relied upon Judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs., Deep Chand 257 ITR 756 in which it was held that capital asset, whether capital gain

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)

14. Assessee aggrieved with the order of the learned CIT – A preferred this appeal before us raising several grounds of appeal. 15. On 12/03/2019, The learned authorised representative submitted that ground number 2 of the appeal clearly says that in respect of similar transaction, coordinate bench in case of the husband of the assessee in ITA Mrs. Neelu Analjit Singh

DR. PRANNOY ROY,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

iii) Property at Mussorie 2,19,542 Total 2,89,279 3.1 That there is no material or valid basis adopted by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to enhance the annual value declared by the appellant and in absence thereof, addition sustained is illegal, invalid and untenable. 3.2 That while upholding the addition the learned Commissioner of Income

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. MRS. RADHIKA ROY, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

iii) Property at Mussorie 2,19,542 Total 2,89,279 3.1 That there is no material or valid basis adopted by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to enhance the annual value declared by the appellant and in absence thereof, addition sustained is illegal, invalid and untenable. 3.2 That while upholding the addition the learned Commissioner of Income

DR. PRANNOY ROY,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

iii) Property at Mussorie 2,19,542 Total 2,89,279 3.1 That there is no material or valid basis adopted by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to enhance the annual value declared by the appellant and in absence thereof, addition sustained is illegal, invalid and untenable. 3.2 That while upholding the addition the learned Commissioner of Income

SMT. RADHIKA ROY,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

iii) Property at Mussorie 2,19,542 Total 2,89,279 3.1 That there is no material or valid basis adopted by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to enhance the annual value declared by the appellant and in absence thereof, addition sustained is illegal, invalid and untenable. 3.2 That while upholding the addition the learned Commissioner of Income

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. DR. PRANNOY ROY, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

iii) Property at Mussorie 2,19,542 Total 2,89,279 3.1 That there is no material or valid basis adopted by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to enhance the annual value declared by the appellant and in absence thereof, addition sustained is illegal, invalid and untenable. 3.2 That while upholding the addition the learned Commissioner of Income

SMT. RADHIKA ROY,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

iii) Property at Mussorie 2,19,542 Total 2,89,279 3.1 That there is no material or valid basis adopted by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to enhance the annual value declared by the appellant and in absence thereof, addition sustained is illegal, invalid and untenable. 3.2 That while upholding the addition the learned Commissioner of Income

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. PURAN ASSOCIATES PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant

14) of Section 2 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (Act') defines the term "capital asset" to include property of any kind held by an assessee, whether or not connected with his business or profession, but does not include any stock-in-trade or personal assets subject to certain exceptions. As regards shares and other securities, the same

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. PURAN ASSOCIATES PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant

14) of Section 2 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (Act') defines the term "capital asset" to include property of any kind held by an assessee, whether or not connected with his business or profession, but does not include any stock-in-trade or personal assets subject to certain exceptions. As regards shares and other securities, the same