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 Act. Therefore we are inclined to decide the issue of claim of administration expenses in favour of the revenue. Ultimately, the assessee may get the benefit of claim of these 12 expenses as business expenditure under the head business income. As such there is no impact for the same in this AY. 14. With regard

DCIT, CIRCLE 22(2), NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI vs. SAHIL VACHANI, DELHI

Appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice Presdient (), Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shriavdhesh Kumar Mishraआअसं.2604/िद"ी/2023(िन.व. 2016-17)

section 271(1)(c). That is clearly not the intendment of the Legislature. [Emphasized by us] 7. Thus, in facts of the case and in light of the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court, we find no infirmity in the order of First Appellate Authority in deleting levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. Ergo, the impugned

ARUN DWIVEDI,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-9(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 54 of the Act for having purchase another\nresidential property within one year of the sale on account of\nunintentional mistake is not accepted and rejected outright.The\nassessee is using the assessment proceedings to legalize the claim of\nexemption of capital gain which it had intentionally chosen not to\ndeclare within the time limit as per the provisions

SHARWAN KUMAR SETHI,NEW DELHI vs. PCIT-17, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shripradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

271(1)(c), if the capital gain is treated as a long term capital gain.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the Assessee filed return of income declaring an income of Rs. 1,72,48,137/-. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS. An order under section

SNEH GUPTA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-32(1), DELHI, DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed on both counts on merit as well as jurisdictional issue raised by the assessee in the additional ground of appeal

Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

section 54F of the Act. Further, Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition in impugned order dated 09.08.2024. Hence the present appeal. The case of the assessee is that she sold shares on 20.12.2012 and deposited capital gain in bank account under capital gain scheme and further she started construction of a residential property. For this purpose, she purchased a residential

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

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

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

DCIT, CIRCLE- 20(2), NEW DELHI vs. RADHARANI ORNAMENTS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms Astha Chandra

Section 143(3) vide order dated 27th November, 2007 but the Assessing Officer did not object to the said conversion. These shares were subsequently sold as detailed in paragraph 2.9 of the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) in August, 2005, September, 2005 and substantial portion was old in March, 2006 and long-term capital gains was declared/ He observed that

ARUNIMA ADCON SERVICES PVT LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 20(2), NEW DELHI

In the result the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms Astha Chandra

Section 143(3) vide order dated 27th November, 2007 but the Assessing Officer did not object to the said conversion. These shares were subsequently sold as detailed in paragraph 2.9 of the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) in August, 2005, September, 2005 and substantial portion was old in March, 2006 and long-term capital gains was declared/ He observed that

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

Section 50CA, vide Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M/s Cinestaan Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. in ITA 1007/2019 and ITO vs Appealing Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. [ITA No. 1958 (Delhi) 2019].\n10. That under the facts and circumstances, the Ld. CIT(A) vide the 1st impugned order has failed to appreciate that the Ld. A.O. exceeded his jurisdiction in examining the issues

SURESH CHAND BANSAL,HARYANA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-16 , DELHI

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

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK (Judicial Member)

section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961. In this regard all of his observation is wrong and against the facts and law. 3. That on facts & circumstances of the case the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) has erred in initiating penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. 4. That the Commissioner of Income

AMIT BANSAL,HARYANA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-16, DELHI

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

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK (Judicial Member)

section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961. In this regard all of his observation is wrong and against the facts and law. 3. That on facts & circumstances of the case the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) has erred in initiating penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. 4. That the Commissioner of Income

AMIT BANSAL,HARYANA vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-16, DELHI

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

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK (Judicial Member)

section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961. In this regard all of his observation is wrong and against the facts and law. 3. That on facts & circumstances of the case the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) has erred in initiating penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. 4. That the Commissioner of Income

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 being charged to income tax as income of the previous year in which the transfer took place, it shall be dealt with in accordance with the following provisions of this section, that is to say,- i. ……………… ii ……………….. 5.9.1 In the result, inter alia as shown above, it is held that the appellant is not entitled to deduction

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. PNB FINANCE & INDUSTRIES LTD

Accordingly, the same stands dismissed without any order as to

capital gain as declared by the assessee company.” On the basis of aforesaid reasoning, the assessing officer assessed the tax at Rs.3,25,82,805/- and initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271

BRAHAM PRAKASH,GURGAON vs. ITO WARD - 1(3), GURGAON

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year: 2011-12

capital gain which is not appropriated by the assessee for the purchase of the new asset before the date of furnishing the return of income under section 139, shall be deposited by him before furnishing such return [such deposit being made in any case not later than the due date applicable in the case of the assessee for furnishing

MONI KUMAR SUBBA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-08, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Yogesh Kumar Usshri Moni Kumar Subba Vs. Acit 118, Subba Farm House, Central Circle – 08, Vill. Sultanpur, Mehrauli New Delhi Gurgaon Road Delhi – 110 030 Pan No. Aasps 1484 J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri R. S. Singhvi, C.A. Shri Satyajeet Goel, C.A. Shri Rajat Garg, C.A. Revenue By Shri Subhra Jyoti Chakraborty, Cit-D.R. Date Of Hearing: 05.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 05.09.2024 Order Per Pradip Kumar Kedia, Am :

section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 3. When the matter was called for hearing, the learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that there is a chequered history involved in the case. The Assessing Officer in the quantum proceedings initially made three additions; (i). Addition on account of capital gains