MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated above and the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

section 211 of the Companies Act, 1956, it is mandatory for every corporate-assessee to strictly follow the aforesaid accounting standards. The appellant has consistently followed the Accounting Standard 13 and valued the investments at cost and not at lower of cost or net realizable value. The accounting treatment followed by the assessee has always been accepted by the Revenue

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated above and the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

section 211 of the Companies Act, 1956, it is mandatory for every corporate-assessee to strictly follow the aforesaid accounting standards. The appellant has consistently followed the Accounting Standard 13 and valued the investments at cost and not at lower of cost or net realizable value. The accounting treatment followed by the assessee has always been accepted by the Revenue

GIRISH BANSAL vs. UOI & ORS.

The appeals are allowed but in the circumstances with order as to costs

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

Section 10(3) of the Act. 27. The Calcutta High Court in B.K. Roy Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (1995) 211 ITR 500 (Cal) dissented from the decision in Gulab Chand (supra) holding that if a capital receipt is not taxable as capital gain

GYANENDRA BANSAL vs. UOI & ORS.

The appeals are allowed but in the circumstances with order as to costs

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

Section 10(3) of the Act. 27. The Calcutta High Court in B.K. Roy Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (1995) 211 ITR 500 (Cal) dissented from the decision in Gulab Chand (supra) holding that if a capital receipt is not taxable as capital gain

SMT. HARMINDER KAUR,,NEW DELHI vs. ITO,, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant[Through Video Conferencing]

section 139(4) of the Act. The chronological events of sale of the original asset and investment in new residential house submitted by the assessee are reproduced as under: S.NO. Particulars Remark 1. Sale of residential house Property at 23.06.2010 211, Sector-6 , Panchkula Capital Gain

MANISH TYAGI,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO, GHAZIABAD

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Manish Tyagi, Vs. Ito, House No. 131, Sector-6, Ward-1(4), Chiranjeev Vihar, Ghaziabad Ghaziabad Pan: Acgpt1413J (Appellant) (Respondent)

capital gain on sale of shares in purchase of flat before expiry of statutory period, benefit of deduction u/s 54F could not be denied to assessee on the ground that building was under construction stage and assessee had chosen to pay entire advance. d) In Smt Rajneet Sandhu vs DCIT (2011) 16 Taxmann.com 210, Chandigarh Bench of ITAT has observed

M/S. ASHWANI KUMAR & SONS (HUF),MEERUT vs. ITO, MEERUT

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri I. C. Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishiashwani Kumar & Sons (Huf) Ito, C/0. Vinod Kumar Goel, Vs. Ward-1(1), 282, Boundary Road, Civil Lines, Meerut Meerut Pan:Aahha7564A (Appellant) (Respondent)

capital gains is reinvested in the purchase of agricultural land in the next two years was extended to a Hindu undivided family, by substitution of the words in sub-section (1), “the assessee or a parent of his”, by the words “the assessee being an individual or his parent, or a Hindu undivided family” with effect from April

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. VALMIK THAPAR, NEW DELHI

Appeals are disposed of by this common order as indicated above

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice P.P. Bhatt & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Acit, 19, Kautilya Marg, Circle-53(1), New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Dcit, M/S. R. N. Khanna & Company, Ca, Circle-32(1), 14-15F, Shivam House, Connaught New Delhi Place, New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. Shri Valmik Thapar, Circle-53(1), 19, Kautilya Marg, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Salil Agarwal, Senior Advocate Along With Shri Shailesh Gupta, Shri Mahur Agarwal, Advocates Revenue By: Shri H. K. Choudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 11/06/2021 (Last Hearing) Date Of Pronouncement 11/06/2021. O R D E R Per Prashant Maharishi, A. M. 1. These Are Three Appeals For Two Assessment Years Pertaining To One Assessee, Mr. Valmik Thapar, A Resident, Individual [Assessee]. Assessee Filed Ita Number

Section 54EC of the Act. He also rejected the contention of the assessee that the capital gain should have been taxed in assessment year 2007 – 08. AO further stated that assessee himself is not sure in which year he would like to offer the taxability of the capital gain arising on the sale of the above property. However

SH. VALMIK THAPAR,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Appeals are disposed of by this common order as indicated above

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice P.P. Bhatt & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Acit, 19, Kautilya Marg, Circle-53(1), New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Dcit, M/S. R. N. Khanna & Company, Ca, Circle-32(1), 14-15F, Shivam House, Connaught New Delhi Place, New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. Shri Valmik Thapar, Circle-53(1), 19, Kautilya Marg, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Salil Agarwal, Senior Advocate Along With Shri Shailesh Gupta, Shri Mahur Agarwal, Advocates Revenue By: Shri H. K. Choudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 11/06/2021 (Last Hearing) Date Of Pronouncement 11/06/2021. O R D E R Per Prashant Maharishi, A. M. 1. These Are Three Appeals For Two Assessment Years Pertaining To One Assessee, Mr. Valmik Thapar, A Resident, Individual [Assessee]. Assessee Filed Ita Number

Section 54EC of the Act. He also rejected the contention of the assessee that the capital gain should have been taxed in assessment year 2007 – 08. AO further stated that assessee himself is not sure in which year he would like to offer the taxability of the capital gain arising on the sale of the above property. However

SHRI VALMIK THAPAR,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Appeals are disposed of by this common order as indicated above

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice P.P. Bhatt & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Acit, 19, Kautilya Marg, Circle-53(1), New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Dcit, M/S. R. N. Khanna & Company, Ca, Circle-32(1), 14-15F, Shivam House, Connaught New Delhi Place, New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. Shri Valmik Thapar, Circle-53(1), 19, Kautilya Marg, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Salil Agarwal, Senior Advocate Along With Shri Shailesh Gupta, Shri Mahur Agarwal, Advocates Revenue By: Shri H. K. Choudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 11/06/2021 (Last Hearing) Date Of Pronouncement 11/06/2021. O R D E R Per Prashant Maharishi, A. M. 1. These Are Three Appeals For Two Assessment Years Pertaining To One Assessee, Mr. Valmik Thapar, A Resident, Individual [Assessee]. Assessee Filed Ita Number

Section 54EC of the Act. He also rejected the contention of the assessee that the capital gain should have been taxed in assessment year 2007 – 08. AO further stated that assessee himself is not sure in which year he would like to offer the taxability of the capital gain arising on the sale of the above property. However

RAJ KUMAR,NEW DELHI vs. ITO,WARD-58(4), DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amitabh Shukla

section 139(4) of the Act. The chronological events of sale of the original asset and investment in new residential house submitted by the assessee are reproduced as under: Sl.No. Particulars Remark 1 Sale of residential house Property at 23.06.2010 211, Sector-6 , Panchkula 2 Capital Gain

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

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Ms Suchitra Kamble(Through Video Conferencing) Vs Havells India Ltd. Acit 1, Raj Narian Marg, Ltu Civil Lines New Delhi New Delhi Aaach0351E (Respondent) (Appellant)

section is only gains accruing as a result of transfer of the asset and nothing more. In the present case, as stated above, there was no “gain” on transfer/redemption of the shares in so far as the shares were redeemed at par value. Thus, there was no gain which accrued to the assessee as a result of redemption of such

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. OPG SECURITIES PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

Appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Smt Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishidcit, Vs. Opg Securities Pvt. Ltd, Circle-19(1), Room No. 221, G-190, Preet Vihar, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aaaco1081C (Appellant) (Respondent)

211 shares Rs. 66.04.948/- Long-term capital gain Rs.3.55.84.020/- The aforesaid indexed cost of acquisition, it may be mentioned here, was computed on the basis of indexed cost of acquisition of membership card in accordance with the provisions of section

JAPAN INTERNATIONAL CO- OPERATION AGENCY,NEW DELHI vs. DDIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri J. S. Reddy & Shri Kuldip Singh

Gain amounted to Rs. 14,029,045/- as per return. Ground. No.5 Based on the facts and circumstances ofthe case, the learned Assessing Officer has erred in law and on facts. in levying interest under Section 234B of the Act. Ground 0.6 Based on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Assessing Officer has erred

SHRI BALAJI INDUSTRIES COMPLEX,BADAUN vs. CIT, MORADABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri N.K.Billaiya & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2009-10 Balaji Industries Complex, Cit, Ismailpur, Moradabad-244001 Vs Badaun. (Pan: Abefs3007Q) Appellant Respondent Assessee By: Mr. Abhinav Mehrotra, Adv. Department By: Smt. Meeta Singh C.I.T. Dr Date Of Hearing: 19.06.2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 17.09.2018

capital gains had been earned. Thus, it is not the case of the department that no information regarding the impugned transaction was called for by the Assessing Officer or that the transaction was not enquired into by the Assessing Officer. It is very much evident that relevant details in this regard were submitted by the assessee during the course

RAVI JAIN,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: : Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2013-14

capital gains as cost of improvement ignoring the fact that the expense of construction cost is allowable deduction u/s 54/54F of the Act if the same is done before the filling of return of income. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred both in law and in facts of the case in making the above disallowance without providing any opportunity

ITO WARD - 30(1), NEW DELHI vs. KUSUM GUPTA, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal filed by the Revenue Department, stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri N.K. Choudhryassessment Year: 2015-16

capital gain. ” As far as above provisions of section are concerned, it is evident that appellant is found to be entitled to claim exemption accordingly as all the basic condition are found to be fulfilled- i.e. a) That appellant is an individual b) That property sold was residential one c) That during the stipulated period of time, appellanthas purchased anotherproperty

VALMIK THAPAR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 18

Appeal is allowed and the additions made by the AO in the

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA

Section 54 of the Act but had claimed deduction in respect of two capital assets. 12. The Assessee contested the aforesaid reasoning of the AO and sought to sustain his calculation of long term capital gains chargeable to tax under Digitally Signed By:TARUN RANA Signing Date:04.04.2025 15:27:54 Signature Not Verified ITA No.182/2021 Page