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

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

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

capital gain. Page 13 of 21 ITA 3092/Del/2024 9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent relies upon a Division Bench judgment of Karnataka High Court in Fathima Bai vs. ITO (2009) 32 DTR (Kar) 243 where in somewhat similar circumstances, it has been held that time-limit for deposit under scheme or utilisation can be made before

M/S MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

capital gain of Rs.6,90,68,982/- as business income.\n9.3 That the assessing officer erred on facts and in law in holding that\ninvestment in units of mutual funds and shares were made as a systematic\nbusiness activity, without appreciating that such investments were made on\ncapital account and not as “stock-in-trade”.\n9.4 That the assessing officer

RAJENDRA AGGARWAL,NEW DELHI vs. ITO,WARD-1(3), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri M. Balaganesh[Assessment Year: 2017-18]

section 54F of the Act and that can be from own funds or any source. If such presumption is believed then how the assessee can invest from the same amount? What is required to be seen that the amount of capital gain should be invested in Long Term Capital Gain Scheme in the bank and not see the form

SHAILENDRA ,MEERUT vs. ITO, WARD- 2(3), MEERUT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2009-10] Shailendra, Vs Ito, C/O-Vinod Kumar Goel, 282, Ward-2(3), Boundary Road, Civil Lines, Meerut. Meerut, Uttar Pradesh. Pan-Cavps9753D Appellant Respondent Appellant By None Respondent By Ms. Maimun Alam, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 02.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 02.02.2023

section 50C cannot be apply to determine concealed particulars of income. The A.O. is therefore, directed to workout the concealed capital gain in accordance with the sale value of the property shown on the sale deed and on that basis as well as using the cost of acquisition allowed in appeal. On this actual amount of concealed capital gains

M/S THE ORIENTAL INSSURANCE CO.LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Anubhav Sharmam/S. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd, Vs. The Dcit, A 25/27, Asaf Ali Road, Ltu, New Delhi New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaact0627R

274,11,65,844/- the amount which was allowed by the Assessing Officer as exempt under section 10. The contention of the CIT (A) was that the assessee was not eligible for deduction under section 10, once the incomes are brought to tax under section 44 r.w. Rule 5 of First Schedule to the Income Tax Act, 1961. 8. There

FR. SAUTER AG,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD INTERNATIONAL TAX 1(3)(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the Appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2012-13]

capital gains at Rs. 4,16,27,166 as per first proviso of section 48 and section 112 of the Act read with Rule 115A. 4 Fr. Sauter AG. Vs. ITO 5- Ground No. 5: Credit of taxes deducted at source and self-assessment tax 5.1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the ease

CHIRANJEEV KUMAR VINAYAK,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-47(5), NEW DELHI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

capital gains on sale of land and building and could not substantiate his claim about purchase of another house property, and thus the AO brought to tax LTCG and also levied penalty u/s 271(l)(c) ; Notes that CIT(A) had deleted the penalty by applying the ratio laid down by Karnataka HC in Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory case

INDUS TOWERS LTD.,GURUGRAM, HARYANA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE 12(1), NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

gains\non transfer of shares. The Tribunal held that recognition of shares at fair\nvalue does not amount to revaluation. The conclusion drawn by the Delhi\nTribunal in this regard are as under:-\n“17. Such a premise of the Assessing Officer cannot be approved for\nthe reason that;\nFirstly, this reserve has not been created on revaluation of\nasset

DCIT, CIRCLE- 1, LTU, NEW DELHI vs. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh.Anubhav Sharmaita No. 1952/Del/2018, A.Y. 2013-14 M/S. The Oriental Insurance Co. Vs. Dcit, Ltd. Circle-1, Ltu, A-25/27, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi New Delhi- 110002 Pan :Aaact0627R

274,11,65,844/- the amount which was allowed by the Assessing Officer as exempt under section 10. The contention of the CIT (A) was that the assessee was not eligible for deduction under section 10, once the incomes are brought to tax under section 44 r.w. Rule 5 of First Schedule to the Income Tax Act, 1961. 8. There

THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 1, LTU, NEW DELHI

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh.Anubhav Sharmaita No. 1952/Del/2018, A.Y. 2013-14 M/S. The Oriental Insurance Co. Vs. Dcit, Ltd. Circle-1, Ltu, A-25/27, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi New Delhi- 110002 Pan :Aaact0627R

274,11,65,844/- the amount which was allowed by the Assessing Officer as exempt under section 10. The contention of the CIT (A) was that the assessee was not eligible for deduction under section 10, once the incomes are brought to tax under section 44 r.w. Rule 5 of First Schedule to the Income Tax Act, 1961. 8. There

GEORGE KUTTY,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-13(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2010-11] George Kutty, Vs Dcit, C/O-M/S. Oasis Tours India (P.) Circle-13(1), Ltd., C-40, Middle Circle, Dwarka New Delhi. Sadan, Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001. Pan-Aajpk4005H Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Manish Malik, Adv. Respondent By Shri Om Parkash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 11.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 24.08.2022

274 r.w.s. 271 (l)(c) of the IT Act, 1961 ,which is bad in law as it does not specify under which limb of section 271 (l)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 the penalty proceeding had been initiated i.e. whether for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 5. That the appellant craves, leave

LAND ACQUISTION OFFICE,GURGAON vs. DCIT (TDS), GURGAON

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

274/- for the assessment year 2010-11 and 2011-12 respectively under section 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Act. 2.1 During proceedings for assessment year 2012-13 on 17.1.2014 the assessee filed a letter stating that in view of judgment dated 18.7.2013 of the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Jagmal Singh vs. State

LAND ACQUISTION OFFICE,GURGAON vs. DCIT (TDS), GURGAON

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

274/- for the assessment year 2010-11 and 2011-12 respectively under section 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Act. 2.1 During proceedings for assessment year 2012-13 on 17.1.2014 the assessee filed a letter stating that in view of judgment dated 18.7.2013 of the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Jagmal Singh vs. State

LAND ACQUISTION OFFICE,GURGAON vs. DCIT (TDS), GURGAON

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

274/- for the assessment year 2010-11 and 2011-12 respectively under section 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Act. 2.1 During proceedings for assessment year 2012-13 on 17.1.2014 the assessee filed a letter stating that in view of judgment dated 18.7.2013 of the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Jagmal Singh vs. State

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 10(1), DELHI, CR BUILDING vs. INDUS TOWERS LIMITED, GURGRAM

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

gains\non transfer of shares. The Tribunal held that recognition of shares at fair\nvalue does not amount to revaluation. The conclusion drawn by the Delhi\nTribunal in this regard are as under:-\n\n17. Such a premise of the Assessing Officer cannot be approved for\nthe reason that;\nFirstly, this reserve has not been created on revaluation of\nasset

MRS. NEETA GUPTA,NEW DELHI vs. CIT (APPEALS)-XXVI, NEW DELHI

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman

capital gains (supra) is concerned, Mr. Jain takes us to the CIT(A)’s lower appellate discussion on the said former issue reading as under: “7.5 The admitted cost of old property is Rs.1,32,50,000/- (cost of entire property: Rs.1,25,00,000/- plus stamp duty Rs.7,50,000/-). Thus, to arrive the cost of acquisition