ITA Nos. 601/2011 & 602/2011 vs. ANSAL PROPERTIES & INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.

The appeals are disposed of

1 of 23 $~7&8. * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA Nos. 601/2011 & 602/2011 CIT ..... Appellant Through Mr. Abhishek Maratha, Sr. Standing Counsel. Versus ANSAL PROPERTIES & INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. ..... Respondent Through Mr. Satyen Sethi, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR O R D E R % 19.04.2012 Having heard learned counsel

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. VIREET INVESTMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Kumaracit, Circle 17 (1) Vs. Vireet Investments Pvt. Ltd., Delhi. 21D, Friends Colony West, New Delhi – 110 065. (Pan : Aaacv2033M) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Manish Jain, Ca Revenue By : Ms. Sapna Bhatia, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 04.09.2024 Date Of Order : 06.11.2024 Order Per S.Rifaur Rahman,Am: 1. The Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) [“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short] Dated 28.12.2023 For The Assessment Year 2004-05. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are, Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For Assessment Year 2004-05 On 31.10.2004 Declaring Income Of Rs.34,80,69,911/-. The Same Was Processed Under Section 143 (1) Of The 2 Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act’) On 28.12.2004. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny & Notices U/S 143(2) & 142(1) Of The Act Were Issued & Served On The Assessee. In Response, Ld. Ar For The Assessee Attended From Time To Time & Submitted Relevant Information As Called For. 3. The Assessee Was Incorporated On 03.10.1983 With The Main Objects, As Per Memorandum Of Association, To Acquire & Hold Shares, Stocks, Debentures, Debenture Stocks, Bonds, Obligations & Securities Issued Or Guaranteed By Any Company Constituted Or Carried On Business In The Republic Of India. After Considering The Submissions Of The Assessee, The Assessing Officer Proceeded To Make The Following Additions In The Assessment Completed U/S 143 (3) Of The Act :-

Section 48 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and only following expenses are eligible to be deducted from the Income Tax Act, 1961 under the head capital gains: 1. Which are incurred wholly and exclusively in connection with the transfer of the Capital assets and 2. The cost of acquisition of the asset and the cost of any improvement thereto

ESSAR COM LIMITED,MAURITIUS vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1(2)(2), NEW DELHI

1 of 2023 and\nHomble Supreme Court on Azadi Bachao andolan\nmandate that the residential status deciding the\ntaxability governed by findings of facts\nPara 49 (page 180-181) ECL\nPara 49 (page 176-177)\nECOM\n12. Testing of residential status by the CIT(A) through\nexamination of the concept of control and\nmanagement of affairs under the factual matrix

SANGEETA DEVI JHUNJHUNWALA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-70(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2015-16

gain. 20. Suman Poddar vs. ITO (2019) 112 taxmann.com 330 (SC): In this case the Hon’ble Supreme Court reproduced the relevant part of the order of CIT (Appeals) wherein he observed that in the assessment order the AO referred to the general modus operandi of bogus accommodation entry and thereafter, he has further referred to statement of parties

DCIT, CIRCLE 52(1), NEW DELHI vs. BHUPINDER SINGH BHALLA, NEW DELHI

Appeal of the revenue is dismissed

1), which are (i) a capital gain arises from the transfer of land by the\nassessee, (ii) of a capital asset being land, and (iii) such land was being used by\nthe assessee or his parents, the assessee being an individual or his parents or a\nHUF for agricultural purposes, in the two years immediately preceding the date

RICHMOND EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,NOIDA vs. DCIT/ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, GHAZIABAD, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

capital of that concern, the exemption under section\n11 or section 12 shall not be denied in relation to any income other than the income\narising to the trust or the institution from such investment, by reason only that the\nfunds of the trust or the institution have been invested in a concern in which such\nperson has a substantial

KULDIP KUMAR GOEL,DELHI vs. ACIT(1)(1), DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in above\nterms for statistical purposes

gains, and\nthe lack of a response to inquiries. The appellant never filed a fresh\nreturn pursuant to section 148, nor did it produce documentary evidence\nfor the claimed “cost of improvement” of Rs.88,11,036 despite repeated\nrequests. Above discussion and adjudication shows that a very large\namount of claim of deduction as cost of improvement was not\nsubstantiated

AZIZUL GHANI ,NEW DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - ITO WARD 63(3) NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarazizul Ghani Vs. Ito, Ward 63(3) 1407 Pan Mandi E-2, Block, Civic Centre, Sadar Bazar, New Delhi – 110002 Delhi – 110006 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aajpg7737K Appellant .. Respondent

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter P a g e | 2 Azizul Ghani (AY: 2015-16) referred to as ‘the Act’) arising out of assessment order dated 22.12.2017 of Ld. AO/ITO, Ward 63(3), Delhi, u/s 143(3) of the Act for AY: 2015-16. 2. Brief facts of the case are that assessee filed return of income

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

250/- on 27/03/2018 was filed by claiming exemption of Rs.96,00,000/- u/s 54 of I.T. Act. Admittedly, the appellant had not invested in specified Capital Gain Scheme, however, it is evident that the Appellant purchased a residential apartment on 13/10/2017 i.e. within two years from the date of sale of his old residential house which was sold on 06/02/2017

(Now known as Sony India Limited)

250 Advertisement and promotion for DC -1 GB CF card for promo 7,80,000 Advertisement and promotion for DC POS MERCHANDISING, PHOTOFAIR 19,02,556 Shows and seminar for copiers 18,94,916 Black & white and colour advertisement for copiers 18,53,126 Advertisement and promotion - Expenses BIS-PGA 3,12,236 Total 12,10,48,124 (The table

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 05 , DELHI vs. DEEPAK KOTHARI , KANPUR

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

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

section, as construed, would apply uniformly for all capital assets, i.e., drawing no exception for any particular class or category of the specified assets, as the 'right' shares. No addition u/s. 56(2)(vii)(c) would thus arise in the undisputed facts of the instant case, and the assessee succeeds. Conclusion 4.6 We may finally discuss the issue from

DEEPAK KATHARI,KANPUR vs. ACIT, CC-5, NEW DELHI

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

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

section, as construed, would apply uniformly for all capital assets, i.e., drawing no exception for any particular class or category of the specified assets, as the 'right' shares. No addition u/s. 56(2)(vii)(c) would thus arise in the undisputed facts of the instant case, and the assessee succeeds. Conclusion 4.6 We may finally discuss the issue from

CK INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD,DELHI vs. ITO,WARD-6(1), DELHI

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

capital gain in terms with\nsub-section (3) of section 50C. Therefore, sub-section\n(1) to section 50C cannot be considered in isolation. By\nmaking an adjustment of the nature contemplated\nunder sub- section (1) to section 50C, that too, by\nCPC, the Department takes away a valuable statutory\nright given to the assessee to object to the value

INCOME TAX vs. LIMITED

The appeal is dismissed

Section 50 (2) of the Act, the entire surplus amount received by the Assessee on the sale of the aforesaid office premises would be liable to „short term capital gains‟. Accordingly, capital gain was calculated by the Assessing Officer by deducting the written down value of the „block of assets‟ as on 01.04.1997 which appeared in the books

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

1)(2) New Delhi term capital gain of Rs. 12,30,01,903/-. The assessee filed its return of income for the A.Y. 2016-17 on 30.07.2016 declaring a total income of Rs. 12,53,57,250/- and claimed TDS credit of Rs. 150,20,164/- and Advance tax of Rs. 60,000. The AO passed an assessment order

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

1)(2) New Delhi term capital gain of Rs. 12,30,01,903/-. The assessee filed its return of income for the A.Y. 2016-17 on 30.07.2016 declaring a total income of Rs. 12,53,57,250/- and claimed TDS credit of Rs. 150,20,164/- and Advance tax of Rs. 60,000. The AO passed an assessment order

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

1)(2) New Delhi term capital gain of Rs. 12,30,01,903/-. The assessee filed its return of income for the A.Y. 2016-17 on 30.07.2016 declaring a total income of Rs. 12,53,57,250/- and claimed TDS credit of Rs. 150,20,164/- and Advance tax of Rs. 60,000. The AO passed an assessment order

SUMEET DHIMAN,PUNJAB vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-4(1), GURGAON

In the result, the Appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Sh. Yogesh Kumar Us

1. The order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-l ["Ld. CIT(A)"] under Section 250(6) of the Act is bad in law and on the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-l ["Ld. CIT(A)"] and Ld. Assessing Officer ('AO') grossly erred in not considering the fact