PHILLIP KOSHY,DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-29, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.415/Del/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 बनाम Phillip Koshy, Dcit, C/O K B Chandna & Co., E-27, Vs. Central Circle-29, Ndse-Ii, Delhi. Delhi. Pan No. Armpk8500C अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

section 54F of the Act, nowhere envisages that sale consideration obtained by the assessee from original capital asset is mandatorily required to be utilized for purposes of meeting cost of new asset. It was, therefore, held that where investment made by the assessee although not entirely sourced from capital gains but was within stipulated time and if more than capital

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

Capital Gain/Short Term Capital Loss or any other sham transactions. " Similarly, the clarification for unlisted shares states: "It is, however, clarified that the above would not be necessarily applied in the situation where: (i) the genuineness of the transaction in unlisted shares itself is questionable; or (ii) the transfer of unlisted shares is related to an issue pertaining to lifting

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

Capital Gain/Short Term Capital Loss or any other sham transactions. " Similarly, the clarification for unlisted shares states: "It is, however, clarified that the above would not be necessarily applied in the situation where: (i) the genuineness of the transaction in unlisted shares itself is questionable; or (ii) the transfer of unlisted shares is related to an issue pertaining to lifting

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 and therefore the calculation made by the Assessing Officer is contrary to the provisions of section 48 of the Income Tax Act. 11. That the Assessing Officer and consequently the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not giving benefit of investment of Rs. 57,79,893/- made by Mr Ashok Tyagi

VARUN SETH,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-47(1), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuasstt. Year: 2015-16

234 ITR 753 (All) and C. Aryama Sundaram Vs. CIT [2018] 407 ITR 1 (Madras). 4.3 Lastly, Ld. Counsel submitted that assessee claimed exemption only for the amount actually invested for the purpose of constructing house thereon and also made deposit in the Capital Gain Account with PNB, so as to complete the construction thereon and in support relied upon

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

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Section 132 (4A) on the basis of these two statements. It is a matter of the record - duly noted by the CIT (A) as well as ITAT that the three companies or business concerns whose monies were supposed to have been reflected in the handwritten ledgers (Bondwell Insurance Brokers, E-Synergy Infosystems Pvt. Ltd. and Paradigm Advertising) were all concerns

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

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Section 132 (4A) on the basis of these two statements. It is a matter of the record - duly noted by the CIT (A) as well as ITAT that the three companies or business concerns whose monies were supposed to have been reflected in the handwritten ledgers (Bondwell Insurance Brokers, E-Synergy Infosystems Pvt. Ltd. and Paradigm Advertising) were all concerns

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. SMT. SEEMA SOBTI, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stand dismissed

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year: 2012-13

capital gains were declared at Rs. 1,09,98,256/-, out of which a sum of Rs. 1 Crore was claimed as a deduction under section 54EC of the Act, by purchase of REC bonds worth Rs. 50 Lakhs each on 31.03.2009 and 30.04.2009. While dismissing the appeal of the Revenue, the High Court affirmed its earlier above-cited decision

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. SHRI AKSHAY SOBTI, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the 02 appeals filed by the Revenue stand

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year: 2012-13

capital gains were declared at Rs. 1,09,98,256/-, out of which a sum of Rs. 1 Crore was claimed as a deduction under section 54EC of the Act, by purchase of REC bonds worth Rs. 50 Lakhs each on 31.03.2009 and 30.04.2009. While dismissing the appeal of the Revenue, the High Court affirmed its earlier above-cited decision

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. SHRI PRADEEP SOBTI, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the 02 appeals filed by the Revenue stand

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year: 2012-13

capital gains were declared at Rs. 1,09,98,256/-, out of which a sum of Rs. 1 Crore was claimed as a deduction under section 54EC of the Act, by purchase of REC bonds worth Rs. 50 Lakhs each on 31.03.2009 and 30.04.2009. While dismissing the appeal of the Revenue, the High Court affirmed its earlier above-cited decision

ANURAG TYAGI,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO, WARD- 1(1), GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Hon’Ble & Ms. Suchitra Kambleita No. 2626/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Anurag Tyagi, Vs Income Tax Officer, S/O R B Tyagi, Flat No. 303, Ward-1(1), Super Tech, Avant Grade Plot Ghaziabad No. 1, Sector-5, Vaishali, Ghaziabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aagpt6848P Assessee By : Sh. Anup Sharma, Adv. & Sh. Sanjay Prasar, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Surendra Pal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 19.09.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.11.2018 Order Per N. K. Saini: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 09.01.2018 Of Ld. Cit(A), Ghaziabad.

section 54(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the assessee has, within a period of 1 year before or two years after the date on which the transfer took place, purchased a residential house in this case the transfer has taken place on 23/06/2007for the purchase of flat i.e. the date when the ownership was transferred

NINA KSHETRY,NOIDA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE INT.TAX. 2(1)(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assesses in ITA 1876/Del/2023, ITA

Bench: Sh. C.N. Prasad & Sh. Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2016-17

Section 151 is mechanical in law. c. Reassessment is in violation of Circular/Instruction dated 04.03.2021 as modified on 12.03.2021. 10. The ld AR elaborating on its argument that the reassessment is merely based on 'Change of Opinion', stated that the issue of sale of shares and capital gains arising therefrom has already been examined in detail during the original scrutiny

SANGITA KSHETRY,NOIDA vs. ACIT,CIRCLE INT.TAX. 2(1)(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assesses in ITA 1876/Del/2023, ITA

Bench: Sh. C.N. Prasad & Sh. Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2016-17

Section 151 is mechanical in law. c. Reassessment is in violation of Circular/Instruction dated 04.03.2021 as modified on 12.03.2021. 10. The ld AR elaborating on its argument that the reassessment is merely based on 'Change of Opinion', stated that the issue of sale of shares and capital gains arising therefrom has already been examined in detail during the original scrutiny

HERSH VARDHAN KSHETRY,NOIDA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE INT. TAX. 2(1)(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assesses in ITA 1876/Del/2023, ITA

Bench: Sh. C.N. Prasad & Sh. Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2016-17

Section 151 is mechanical in law. c. Reassessment is in violation of Circular/Instruction dated 04.03.2021 as modified on 12.03.2021. 10. The ld AR elaborating on its argument that the reassessment is merely based on 'Change of Opinion', stated that the issue of sale of shares and capital gains arising therefrom has already been examined in detail during the original scrutiny

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)

capital receipt not liable to tax. 5. That the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred on facts and in law in not directing the assessing officer to allow deduction of education cess and secondary higher education cess of Rs.54,21,514. 5.1. That the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred on facts and in law in not adjudicating the claim

ITO, WARD-5(4) vs. MODERN HOME CARE PRODUCTS LTD.,,

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishiito, Vs. M/S. Modern Home Care Ward-5(4), Products Ltd, New Delhi 4, Community Centre, New Friends Colony, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent)

234 ITR 663] where the honourable court has held that A combined reading of section 253(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and rule 22 of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963, makes it abundantly clear that any party aggrieved against the order of the appellate authority can file a memorandum of cross objections against any part

SONI SONU MIRCHANDANI,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-5, NEW DELHI

In the result, Ground Nos

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

capital gain so offered on the same transaction in the original return of income and as such, there were no justification for the assessee to claim exclusion of the amount from the return filed originally under section 139(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961. The Ld. D.R. also submitted that since the amount of Rs.45 lakhs was paid for settling

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - XV vs. BHARTI MISHRA

234 ITR 753 (All.) and Commissioner of Income Tax versus J.R. Subramanya Bhat, (1987) 165 ITR 571 (Kar). These two cases deal with interpretation of Section 54 of the Act. The said Section is pari materia to Section 54F. The only distinction being that Section 54 applies to investment in a new house where the original asset sold was/is residential