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

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 50 of the Act to consider the ‘sale of shares’ as ‘sale of asset’ for calculating short term capita gain, is invalid and not supported by any legal provisions. We therefore direct the AO to delete the additions made as Short Term Capital Gain. The grounds of appeal at 12 to 18 are allowed. 43. As the ground

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 50 of the Act to consider the ‘sale of shares’ as ‘sale of asset’ for calculating short term capita gain, is invalid and not supported by any legal provisions. We therefore direct the AO to delete the additions made as Short Term Capital Gain. The grounds of appeal at 12 to 18 are allowed. 43. As the ground

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 50 of the Act to consider the ‘sale of shares’ as ‘sale of asset’ for calculating short term capita gain, is invalid and not supported by any legal provisions. We therefore direct the AO to delete the additions made as Short Term Capital Gain. The grounds of appeal at 12 to 18 are allowed. 43. As the ground

DEVIDAYAL ALUMINIUM INDUSTRIES (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, GHAZIABAD

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganesh

section 234C ought to have been charged qua the first three installments of advance tax stated to be due on 15th June, 15th September and 15th December, respectively, as the project’s corresponding transfer had taken place only on 17.02.2015 i.e. the date on which the consequential capital gains

DEVIDAYAL ALUMINIUM INDUSTRIES (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, GHAZIABAD

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganesh

section 234C ought to have been charged qua the first three installments of advance tax stated to be due on 15th June, 15th September and 15th December, respectively, as the project’s corresponding transfer had taken place only on 17.02.2015 i.e. the date on which the consequential capital gains

KUSUM SAHGAL,GURUGRAM vs. ACIT,CIRCLE-19(2), DELHI

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

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2016-17 Kusum Sahgal, Through Lr Shri Vs. Acit, Circle-19(2), Viney Sagar Sahgal, New Delhi Mg-2002, The Magnolias, Golf Course Road Dlf Phase-V, Gurugram, 122 002 Haryana Pan :Aatps3766J (Appellant) (Respondent)

capital gain is invested in purchasing a residential house or constructing the residential house within the time stipulated therein. Proviso to sub-section (1) states that the exemption contemplated under sub-section (1) would not be available where an assessee owns a residential house as on the date of the transfer and that the income from the residential house

BILL & PEGGY MARKETING INDIA PVT LTD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX

The appeal is disposed of

234C provides two exceptions when deferment or shortfall in the payment of installment of advance tax can be 2011:DHC:6121-DB ITA 1013/2011 Page 9 of 10 condoned and taken into consideration for computing interest under the said Section. This is possible in case there is under estimate or failure to estimate on account of capital gains

RENU SINGH,DELHI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, DELHI, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Vimal Kumarshri Vimal Kumar

234C of the A 9. That the penalty proceedings initiated under Section 270A and 271D That the penalty proceedings initiated under Section 270A and 271D That the penalty proceedings initiated under Section 270A and 271D of the Act is incorrect, illegal and bad in law; of the Act is incorrect, illegal and bad in law; All of the above grounds

RAJEEV KUMAR,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-30, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the five appeals of the respective assessees are

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2019-20

Section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”), dated 20.05.2021 passed by ACIT, Central Circle-30, Delhi for the common assessment year 2019-20. 2. Common issue is involved in all the five appeals on account of Long Term Capital Gain on sale of property which was a joint property of the five

RAMESH CHAND,DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-30, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the five appeals of the respective assessees are

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2019-20

Section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”), dated 20.05.2021 passed by ACIT, Central Circle-30, Delhi for the common assessment year 2019-20. 2. Common issue is involved in all the five appeals on account of Long Term Capital Gain on sale of property which was a joint property of the five

SUMIT DANG,DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 30, DELHI

In the result, all the five appeals of the respective assessees are

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2019-20

Section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”), dated 20.05.2021 passed by ACIT, Central Circle-30, Delhi for the common assessment year 2019-20. 2. Common issue is involved in all the five appeals on account of Long Term Capital Gain on sale of property which was a joint property of the five

ANIL KUMAR,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-30, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the five appeals of the respective assessees are

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2019-20

Section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”), dated 20.05.2021 passed by ACIT, Central Circle-30, Delhi for the common assessment year 2019-20. 2. Common issue is involved in all the five appeals on account of Long Term Capital Gain on sale of property which was a joint property of the five

THR INFRASTRUCTURE PTE LTD,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CIR.-3(1)(1), INTL TAX, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

234C of the Act on the tax demand, without appreciating that the same is applicable on the returned income and not on the assessed income. 10. The Ld. AO has erred in initiating penalty proceedings under section 270A of the Act for under- reporting/mis-reporting of income without appreciating that the Appellant has duly reported this transaction of capital gain

FRONTLINE SECURITIES LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CPC, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhary(Respondent) Assessee By --None-- Revenue By Shri M. Baranwal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 03.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 05.08.2022 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 24.07.2020 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, New Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Relevant Facts As Culled From The Material On Records Are As Under :

capital gains in different quarters and the provisions of section 234C is not applicable where there is short fall in the payment

MAWANA SUGARS LIMITED.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee being ITA

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI VIMAL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

gains at Rs.6,98,80,603/- instead of Rs.6,90,79,603/- since it is a typographical error, the issue under consideration is remitted back to AO to verify the same and do the needful as per law. Accordingly, ground no.4 raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 29. With regard to Departmental appeal, the brief facts

DCIT (LTU), NEW DELHI vs. M/S. MAWANA SUGAR LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee being ITA

Bench: him in the Memorandum of Appeal. 4.1 That on facts and in law the AO erred in ado tin the figure of Taxable Capital Gains at Rs.6,98,80,603/- instead of Rs.6,90,79,603/-.

gains at Rs.6,98,80,603/- instead of Rs.6,90,79,603/- since it is a typographical error, the issue under consideration is remitted back to AO to verify the same and do the needful as per law. Accordingly, ground no.4 raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 29. With regard to Departmental appeal, the brief facts

SEEMA GOEL,DELHI vs. CIT A, DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

capital gain computation. o The assessment was conducted in a faceless manner, and the appellant was unaware of the proceedings due to lack of physical delivery of notices. 4. Erroneous Levy of Interest Under Sections 234A, 234B, and 234C