MDLR BUILDERS P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-14, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the respective assessees are partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Sh. R. K. Panda & Sh. Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2008-09

2 (47) of the Income Tax Act,1961. The MDLR Group is therefore, liable to pay tax on capital gains earned on this transfer. i) The transfer of partnership share together with rights, title and interests embedded in it took place within 36 months of its acquisition. Therefore the MDLR Group of companies is liable to pay Short Term Capital

SH. RAKESH KUMAR GUPTA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Bench: : Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahu

Section 2(14) (i) of the Act defines a capital asset as not including stock in trade. If the assessee held the shares as "stock in trade", and not as investment, then such shares would stand excluded from the definition of "short term capital asset", and the profit earned on the sale of such shares would not be exigible

CAIRN UK HOLDING LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), NEW DELHI

In the result ground No. 5 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

2)/2Q13-14/453 dated ' 25.02.2014" (Emphasis added) 6.8 Further, in the said reasons, at various places reference was given of the February 2014. This goes to prove that the survey report was received by the AO in the month of February 2014 only. 6.9 In view of the above, the Appellant submits that since the survey report had been received

ANANT RAJ LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(2), NEW DELHI

The appeal is allowed partly as indicated above

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

2,60,00,000/- 14. The CIT(A) further stated that in the depreciation chart, the value of said property was shown at Rs. 6,10,00,000/- which was the purchase value of the said property and the same was reflected in the balance sheet. This shows that no depreciation at all was charged on the said property

DCIT, CIRCLE-2(2), NEW DELHI vs. ANANT RAJ LTD., NEW DELHI

The appeal is allowed partly as indicated above

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

2,60,00,000/- 14. The CIT(A) further stated that in the depreciation chart, the value of said property was shown at Rs. 6,10,00,000/- which was the purchase value of the said property and the same was reflected in the balance sheet. This shows that no depreciation at all was charged on the said property

DCIT, CIRCLE-2(2), NEW DELHI vs. ANANT RAJ LTD., NEW DELHI

The appeal is allowed partly as indicated above

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

2,60,00,000/- 14. The CIT(A) further stated that in the depreciation chart, the value of said property was shown at Rs. 6,10,00,000/- which was the purchase value of the said property and the same was reflected in the balance sheet. This shows that no depreciation at all was charged on the said property

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

gain of Rs.6,90,68,982/- as business income. 9.3 That the assessing officer erred on facts and in law in holding that investment in units of mutual funds and shares were made as a systematic business activity, without appreciating that such investments were made on capital account and not as “stock-in-trade”. 9.4 That the assessing officer erred

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

gain of Rs.6,90,68,982/- as business income. 9.3 That the assessing officer erred on facts and in law in holding that investment in units of mutual funds and shares were made as a systematic business activity, without appreciating that such investments were made on capital account and not as “stock-in-trade”. 9.4 That the assessing officer erred

INDIA TODAY ONLINE PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 12(2), NEW DELHI

In the result both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuita Nos. 6453 & 6454/Del/2018 Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15

capital gain duly accepted by the revenue. Then same cannot be disputed in the impugned assessment year. Secondly, the AO of M/s. Mail Today has accepted the value of Rs. 43.29 while making the assessment u/s 143(3) and which later on in his order passed u/s 154 has been worked out at Rs. 40. Thus, once value

INDIA TODAY ONLINE PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 12(2), NEW DELHI

In the result both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuita Nos. 6453 & 6454/Del/2018 Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15

capital gain duly accepted by the revenue. Then same cannot be disputed in the impugned assessment year. Secondly, the AO of M/s. Mail Today has accepted the value of Rs. 43.29 while making the assessment u/s 143(3) and which later on in his order passed u/s 154 has been worked out at Rs. 40. Thus, once value

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

capital gain on sale of Punjab Khor land claimed it exempt u/s 54B of the Income Tax Act. 4.1 That the ld. CIT (A) has wrongly invoked the powers u/s 251 of the Act to enhance the assessment without appreciating the fact that the said section cannot be pressed to substitute the view/decision of the assessing officer. 4.2 That

RAMESH CHANDER BHASIN,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 53(5), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

capital gains which have been accepted by the A.O. Wife of the assessee also sold her share in the property in reference which have been accepted by the Department under section 143(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 and till date no action under section 147/148 have been taken. He has submitted that in the similar circumstances when claim

M/S. CHANDRA PRAKASH GOEL,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, HAPUR

In the result, the appeal is allowed partly for statistical purpose

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukla & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2010-11 Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Sh. Chandra Prakash Goel, C/O- M/S. Rra Taxindia, D-28, South Hapur Extension, Part-I, New Delhi Pan : Aatpg4288R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Dr. Rakesh Gupta & Sh. Somil Agarwal, Advocates Respondent By Sh. Anil Kumar Sharma, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 02.03.2017 Date Of Pronouncement 20.03.2017 Order Per O.P. Kant, A.M.: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against Order Dated 17/02/2014 Of Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Ghaziabad For Assessment Year 2010-11, Raising Following Grounds:

251,840 2012-13 604 142 746 1,274,000 25,480 Total 11,304 2,665 13,969 18,102,500 677,620 3.1 The assessee computed capital gain on sale consideration of Rs.66,50,000/- and claimed exemption for the amount deposited in capital gain account. 3.2 According to the Assessing Officer, the entire activity of converting

SMT. RITU SINGH,DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2012-13

capital gain to Rs. 98,81,868/- as against the income of Rs. 11,49,116/- assessed by the Assessing Officer by holding that as per section 54 of the I.T. Act only benefit of one residential house property of Rs. 79,71,600/- purchased by the assessee during the year can be allowed to the assessee. 3. That

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)

251 of the Act. 2.4 That the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred on facts and in law in not following the binding decisions of the CIT(A) in the appellant’s own case for the earlier assessment years 2006-07 and 2007-08, in gross violation of principles of judicial discipline. 2.5 Without prejudice, that the assessing officer

RAMOTAR SINGH HUF,REWARI vs. ITO, WARD- 2, REWARI

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2012-13 Ramotar Singh, Huf, Vs Ito, Rewari Ward-2, C/O Naresh Singh Chauhan, Advocate, Rewari. 1035-P, Sector-3, Part Ii, Near Ganeshi Lal Dharmshala, Rewari, Haryana. Pan: Aashr5279J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate. Revenue By : Ms Rakhi Vimal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 16.07.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.08.2020 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am:

2 of the paper book to furnish certain documents such as copy of PAN of HUF, copy of return of income, if any, of HUF and the calculation of such long-term capital gain on sale of land in question along with supporting documents. Referring to page 3 of the paper book, he submitted that the assessee, vide letter dated

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

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Hon’Ble & Sh. K. N. Charyita No. 1412/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 1413/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 1414/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Sh. Brij Bhushan Singal, Vs Acit, W-29, Greater Kailash, Part-Ii, Central Circle-3, New Delhi-110048 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aefps6298M

251(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the 'Act') by assessing new sources of income beyond the record (i.e. the return of income and assessment order) and outside the subject matter of assessments appealed against. 2. That without prejudice to the above, the Ld. CIT(A) exceeded the jurisdiction conferred u/s 153A of the Act by enhancing income

BRIJ BHUSHAN SINGAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 3, NEW DELHI

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Hon’Ble & Sh. K. N. Charyita No. 1412/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 1413/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 1414/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Sh. Brij Bhushan Singal, Vs Acit, W-29, Greater Kailash, Part-Ii, Central Circle-3, New Delhi-110048 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aefps6298M

251(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the 'Act') by assessing new sources of income beyond the record (i.e. the return of income and assessment order) and outside the subject matter of assessments appealed against. 2. That without prejudice to the above, the Ld. CIT(A) exceeded the jurisdiction conferred u/s 153A of the Act by enhancing income