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

The appeals are disposed of

4 of 23 chargeable as short term capital gain. He held that the paper division was a separate unit for which accounts were being maintained separately and the profits were being worked out separately. Thus, the respondent-assessee was claiming depreciation for each unit/division separately and when the entire unit itself had been sold, no block of assets was left

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 :-

4 Description Amount Salaries and other benefits 7,56,809 Entertainment 2,18,125.58 Professional charges (including 39,21,998.97 management fees paid to M/s. Kotak Securities of Rs.36,67,416.97) Vehicle running & maintenance 1,82,480.70 Donations 3,00,000 Loss on sale of assets 1,34,838.34 Security expenses 2,06,556 Travelling expenses 5,64,199 Membership

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

capital gains not taxable in India.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": [ "13(4)", "6(3)", "13(3A)", "13(36)", "250", "90(2)", "90(4

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

Appeal of the revenue is dismissed

250 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961", "Section 143(3) of the Act", "Section 142(3) of the Act", "Section 54B of the Act", "Section 45 of the Income Tax Act, 1961", "Section 81 of Delhi Land Reform Act, 1954", "Section 47(viii) of the Act", "Section 54EC of the Act", "Section 255(4) of the Act" ], "issues": "Whether

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

4. The shares in question were listed on the BSE SME Platform on March 19, 2013. 5. Within 15 months of listing the share prices of this scrip rose many fold reaching around Rs 590/- per share in May-June 2014. 6. Again by grand lucky co-incidence assessee was able to sell his shares acquired @ Rs 5 per share

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

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

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

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

capital gain amounting to rs. 27,49,611/- was held to be taxable in the hands of the assessee. 3 As against the assessment order dated 22/12/2016, the assessee has filed the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal by confirming the addition made by the assessee vide order dated 13/02/2018. 4. Aggrieved

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

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 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Assessee craves leave to add to, alter, amend and/or withdraw any ground or grounds appeal either before or during the course of hearing appeal. Synopsis 3. The representatives of both the sides were heard at length, the case records carefully perused and we have duly considered the documentary evidences brought on record

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 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Assessee craves leave to add to, alter, amend and/or withdraw any ground or grounds appeal either before or during the course of hearing appeal. Synopsis 3. The representatives of both the sides were heard at length, the case records carefully perused and we have duly considered the documentary evidences brought on record

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 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Assessee craves leave to add to, alter, amend and/or withdraw any ground or grounds appeal either before or during the course of hearing appeal. Synopsis 3. The representatives of both the sides were heard at length, the case records carefully perused and we have duly considered the documentary evidences brought on record

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

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-I

gains of the business. For these reasons, we are of the view that no substantial question of law arises. We, therefore, decline to admit question Nos. 2 and 3. 10. So far as the question No.4 is concerned, it is seen that before the Assessing Officer, in response to a query raised by him, the assessee submitted that merely

BIGSTAR HOTELS RESORTS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD 5(1), NEW DELHI

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

4 of 7\n17. The AO had ignored the fact that there is difference between\nthe valuation for the purpose of section 56(2)(vii)(b) read with under\nRule 11UA(2), where the book value of assets appearing in the\nbalance sheet is to be taken for the purpose of valuation. However,\nu/s 50CA of the Act, the provisions

ARUNA CHAUDHARY,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-26, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

250 (5) of the 1. T Act. 2.1 That the Ld. CIT (A) failed to appreciate that the additional grounds taken were the legal grounds which according to Hon'ble Apex court in case of NTPC 229 ITR 383 can be raised at any stage of the proceedings. 2.2 That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in ignoring the judgement