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

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

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

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

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

BHAGVAT SINGH,KHURJA vs. ITO, WARD- 1(3), BULANDSHAHR

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Anubhav Sharmabhagvat Singh, Vs. Ito, C/O. Jai Kisha, Adv, 86, Ward-1(3), Nai Basti, Khurja, Aligarh Bulandshahr (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Dbwps8579E

section 50C . Therefore, the AO is being directed to re-compute the LTCG after taking full value of consideration.” 4. The assessee is now in appeal raising following grounds of appeal:- “(1) That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the addition of Rs. 1,09,69,234/- made towards the long term capital gain

Commissioner of Income Tax

234 ITR 733 (Guj.); Caltradeco Steel Sales (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT (2000) 243 ITR 643 (Cal.); CIT vs. Md. Rizwan (2009) 316 ITR 317 (Patna).] (iii) In the regular assessment order under Section 143(3) in the case of assessee relating to the assessment year 1995-96, the Assessing Officer had held that factually no transaction had taken place between

NDTV WORLDWIDE LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT 18(1), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Anubhav Sharmandtv Worldwide Ltd, Vs. Dcit, Okhla Industrial Estate, Circle-18(1), Phase-Ii, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaccn9121G

capital gains’ on the ground that the alleged sale of shares of M/s. NDTV Ethnic Retail Ltd by the Appellant to M/s. Rathi Strategic Ventures India Pvt. Ltd, purportedly constitutes ‘transfer’ under Section 2(47) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’). That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in not appreciating that the terms

IRCON INTERNATIONAL LTD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

234,279,007/-. The assessee treated the currency fluctuation gain in its books of account for AY 1996-97. The assessee accepted the year of accrual of income or loss as AY 1995-96 based on a board circular and claimed capital loss by refusing its return of income and sought to carry forward loss which according

DRISTI TEXTILES PVT. LTD.,GHAZIABAD vs. PR. CIT, GHAZIABAD

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Anubhav Sharma

section 68/69 of the I.T. Act, 1961, instead of applying 8% on the bogus turnover.” 3. After taking into consideration the submissions of the assessee the learned Pr. CIT was satisfied with regard to discrepancy in the quantity of shares traded and considered same to be explained but directed the AO to conduct discreet inquiries about transactions of sale

KAMAL KANT,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-54(1), DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Sh. Sudhir Kumar & Sh. Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2009-10 Kamal Kant Vs. Income Tax Officer Ward K-15 South Extension –One 54(1) Civic Centre Delhi New Delhi 110049 Pan No. Aaipk 1374K (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 154 of the Act dated 30-07-2020 by jurisdictional AO and thereby also confirming the assessment income of the appellant at INR 42,60,922/- as against the returned income of INR 3,38,922/-. (iii) On the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has earned in law and facts of the case by dismissing

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

capital gains; as the case may be, except to the tune of Rs. 23,23,333/- which has already been directed to be assessed under the latter head. It is further clear from a perusal of the case record that the learned Assessing Officer had adopted the sale price of the above said property

PHOOL SINGH,BULANDSHAHR vs. ITO, WARD- 3(1), BULANDSHAHR

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia[Assessment Year: 2010-11]

capital gain is objectionable. 3. The tax assessed Rs. 10165760/- is highly objectionable. The grounds to make the tax assessed is objectionable. 3. At the time of sale consideration the agriculture activity done on the land. Land sold by nature agriculture but the buyer purchased for commercial purpose. 4. Interest u/s 234-A and 234-B is highly objectionable

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-30, NEW DELHI vs. RAJAN SHARMA, DELHI

capital gain taxable in the\nhands of the appellant i.e. Rs.23,33,333/- and the remaining addition of\nRs.3,13,77,600/- is hereby deleted.\"\n25. Learned CIT(DR) could hardly dispute that there is no evidence at all\nagainst the assessee indicating him to have either derived any business income or\n31\nITA 2117 to 2120 & 2441/Del/2022 &\nCO Nos.155

DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-30 , NEW DELHI vs. RAJAN SHARMA, DELHI

capital gain taxable in the\nhands of the appellant i.e. Rs.23,33,333/- and the remaining addition of\nRs.3,13,77,600/- is hereby deleted.\"\n25.\nLearned CIT(DR) could hardly dispute that there is no evidence at all\nagainst the assessee indicating him to have either derived any business income or\n31\nITA 2117 to 2120 & 2441/Del/2022 &\nCO Nos.155

DCIT, CC-30, NEW DELHI vs. RAJAN SHARMA, NEW DELHI

capital gain taxable in the\nhands of the appellant i.e. Rs.23,33,333/- and the remaining addition of\nRs.3,13,77,600/- is hereby deleted.\"\n25. Learned CIT(DR) could hardly dispute that there is no evidence at all\nagainst the assessee indicating him to have either derived any business income or\n31\nITA 2117 to 2120 & 2441/Del/2022 &\nCO Nos.155

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-30, NEW DELHI vs. RAJAN SHARMA , DELHI

capital gain taxable in the\nhands of the appellant i.e. Rs.23,33,333/- and the remaining addition of\nRs.3,13,77,600/- is hereby deleted.\"\n25.\nLearned CIT(DR) could hardly dispute that there is no evidence at all\nagainst the assessee indicating him to have either derived any business income or\n31\nITA 2117 to 2120 & 2441/Del/2022 &\nCO Nos.155