CIT vs. ANSAL PROPERTIES & INFRASTRUCTURE LTD

The appeals are disposed of

capital gains tax is not payable as per Section 50 of the Income Tax Act, 1961?‖ 2. As we have heard learned counsel for the parties on the aforesaid question, we proceed to dictate our decision. 3. These appeals under Section 260A

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. ANSAL PROPERTIES & INFRASTRUCTURE LTD

The appeals are disposed of

capital gains tax is not payable as per Section 50 of the Income Tax Act, 1961?‖ 2. As we have heard learned counsel for the parties on the aforesaid question, we proceed to dictate our decision. 3. These appeals under Section 260A

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

The appeals are disposed of

capital gains tax is not payable as per Section 50 of the Income Tax Act, 1961?‖ 2. As we have heard learned counsel for the parties on the aforesaid question, we proceed to dictate our decision. 3. These appeals under Section 260A

MONI KUMAR SUBBA,DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result ground No. 2 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2006-07 Dcit, Vs. Sh. Moni Kumar Subba, Central Circle-4, New Delhi Subba Farm House, 118, Village Sultanpur, Mehrauli, Gurgaon Road, Delhi Pan :Aasps1484J (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2006-07 Shri. Moni Kumar Subba, Vs. Acit, Subba Farm House, 118, Central Circle-4, E-2, Ara Village Sultanpur, Mehrauli, Centre, Jhandewalan Extn., Gurgaon Road, Delhi New Delhi Pan :Aasps1484J (Appellant) (Respondent)

capital gain tax. 2. That the appellant has not sold the property to M/s. Subba Microsystems Ltd. and lease period was for a limited period of use of property during lease period and after expirty of lease period, land is to be restored back to the appellant and security deposit is refundable and as such there is no case

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. MONI KUMAR SUBBA, NEW DELHI

In the result ground No. 2 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2006-07 Dcit, Vs. Sh. Moni Kumar Subba, Central Circle-4, New Delhi Subba Farm House, 118, Village Sultanpur, Mehrauli, Gurgaon Road, Delhi Pan :Aasps1484J (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2006-07 Shri. Moni Kumar Subba, Vs. Acit, Subba Farm House, 118, Central Circle-4, E-2, Ara Village Sultanpur, Mehrauli, Centre, Jhandewalan Extn., Gurgaon Road, Delhi New Delhi Pan :Aasps1484J (Appellant) (Respondent)

capital gain tax. 2. That the appellant has not sold the property to M/s. Subba Microsystems Ltd. and lease period was for a limited period of use of property during lease period and after expirty of lease period, land is to be restored back to the appellant and security deposit is refundable and as such there is no case

CIT vs. M/S TELETUBE ELECTRONICS LTD

The appeal of the Assessee is allowed

260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 („Act‟) by the Assessee and the Revenue against the impugned common order dated 28th September 2001 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal („ITAT‟) in ITA No. 892/Del/99 for Assessment Year 1994-95. Questions of law 2. On 25th November 2002 while admitting the appeals, the following questions of law were framed

TELETUBE ELECTRONICS LTD

The appeal of the Assessee is allowed

260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 („Act‟) by the Assessee and the Revenue against the impugned common order dated 28th September 2001 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal („ITAT‟) in ITA No. 892/Del/99 for Assessment Year 1994-95. Questions of law 2. On 25th November 2002 while admitting the appeals, the following questions of law were framed

TELETUBE ELECTRONICS LTD

The appeal of the Assessee is allowed

260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 („Act‟) by the Assessee and the Revenue against the impugned common order dated 28th September 2001 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal („ITAT‟) in ITA No. 892/Del/99 for Assessment Year 1994-95. Questions of law 2. On 25th November 2002 while admitting the appeals, the following questions of law were framed

MAMTA AGARWAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-19, NEW DELHI

260A of the Act. 8. Next, we find that, the assessment has been framed under section 153A, consequent to the search action. The scope and ambit of section 153A is well defined. This court, in CIT v. Kabul Gopal Agarwal & Ors. Vs. ITO Chawla, [1] concerning the scope of assessment under Section 153A, has laid out and summarized the legal

RAJ GOPAL AGARWAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 19, NEW DELHI

260A of the Act. 8. Next, we find that, the assessment has been framed under section 153A, consequent to the search action. The scope and ambit of section 153A is well defined. This court, in CIT v. Kabul Gopal Agarwal & Ors. Vs. ITO Chawla, [1] concerning the scope of assessment under Section 153A, has laid out and summarized the legal

GOPAL AGARWAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 19, NEW DELHI

260A of the Act. 8. Next, we find that, the assessment has been framed under section 153A, consequent to the search action. The scope and ambit of section 153A is well defined. This court, in CIT v. Kabul Gopal Agarwal & Ors. Vs. ITO Chawla, [1] concerning the scope of assessment under Section 153A, has laid out and summarized the legal

KUMAR AGARWAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 19 , NEW DELHI

260A of the Act. 8. Next, we find that, the assessment has been framed under section 153A, consequent to the search action. The scope and ambit of section 153A is well defined. This court, in CIT v. Kabul Gopal Agarwal & Ors. Vs. ITO Chawla, [1] concerning the scope of assessment under Section 153A, has laid out and summarized the legal

SUMAN AGARWAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 19, NEW DELHI

260A of the Act. 8. Next, we find that, the assessment has been framed under section 153A, consequent to the search action. The scope and ambit of section 153A is well defined. This court, in CIT v. Kabul Gopal Agarwal & Ors. Vs. ITO Chawla, [1] concerning the scope of assessment under Section 153A, has laid out and summarized the legal

GIRISH BANSAL vs. UOI & ORS.

The appeals are allowed but in the circumstances with order as to costs

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 („Act‟) are directed against the common order dated 21st April 2003 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in ITA Nos. 2731-32/D- 98 for the Assessment Years („AYs‟) 1993-94 and 1994-95 respectively. Background facts 2. The background facts are that the Punjab National Bank („PNB‟) filed a suit

GYANENDRA BANSAL vs. UOI & ORS.

The appeals are allowed but in the circumstances with order as to costs

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 („Act‟) are directed against the common order dated 21st April 2003 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in ITA Nos. 2731-32/D- 98 for the Assessment Years („AYs‟) 1993-94 and 1994-95 respectively. Background facts 2. The background facts are that the Punjab National Bank („PNB‟) filed a suit

CIT vs. DHARAMPAL SATYAPAL

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter 'Act') impugning an order dated 29th October, 2010 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereafter 'ITAT') whereby the Assessee's appeal against an order dated 1st October, 2004 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [hereafter ‘CIT(A)’], was allowed. By the aforesaid order dated 1st October

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S NALWA INVESTMENT LTD.

Appeals are allowed

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

gain tax under Section 47(vii) of the Act. The AO adopting the value of shares of JSL at the rate of Rs. 218 per share, calculated the profit on receipts of shares of JSL under the scheme of amalgamation at Rs. 5,31,28,579/-, and taxed the same as ‘business income’. Revenue contended that since the Respondent-assessee

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DEL vs. M/S MANSAROVAR INVESTMENTS LTD

Appeals are allowed

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

gain tax under Section 47(vii) of the Act. The AO adopting the value of shares of JSL at the rate of Rs. 218 per share, calculated the profit on receipts of shares of JSL under the scheme of amalgamation at Rs. 5,31,28,579/-, and taxed the same as ‘business income’. Revenue contended that since the Respondent-assessee