M/S. HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.(HUDCO),NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Appeals of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

capital gains to tax in the return of income. During the course of assessment proceedings when these incomes were picked up by the tax officer, the taxpayer admitted earning of the incomes and filed a revised computation of income. Based on this finding, the tax officer mentioned in the assessment order that penalty proceedings under Section

M/S. HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.(HUDCO),NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Appeals of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

capital gains to tax in the return of income. During the course of assessment proceedings when these incomes were picked up by the tax officer, the taxpayer admitted earning of the incomes and filed a revised computation of income. Based on this finding, the tax officer mentioned in the assessment order that penalty proceedings under Section

M/S. HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.(HUDCO),NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Appeals of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

capital gains to tax in the return of income. During the course of assessment proceedings when these incomes were picked up by the tax officer, the taxpayer admitted earning of the incomes and filed a revised computation of income. Based on this finding, the tax officer mentioned in the assessment order that penalty proceedings under Section

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

SMT. HARMINDER KAUR,,NEW DELHI vs. ITO,, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant[Through Video Conferencing]

capital gain. 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 the due date for filing

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

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

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Capital Gain declared by the assessee was arranged transactions. The operative part of the Tribunal order is as under: 9.5. From the above, it is clear that Mr. Mukesh Choksi is double 'speaking in his statements i.e. one given before the A.O. and the one during cross examination before the A.O. Under these circumstances one has to see the evidentiary

UMA SINGAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRL CIRCLE-3, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Capital Gain declared by the assessee was arranged transactions. The operative part of the Tribunal order is as under: 9.5. From the above, it is clear that Mr. Mukesh Choksi is double 'speaking in his statements i.e. one given before the A.O. and the one during cross examination before the A.O. Under these circumstances one has to see the evidentiary

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:

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 the agriculture land into residential plots, constructing service roads

NARENDRA KUMAR SINGH,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAQL CIRCLE-15, , NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2013-14 Shri Narendra Kumar Singh, Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of C/O- Vivek Bansal, 2Nd Floor, Income Tax, B-3/4, Safdarjung Enclave, Central Circle-15, New Delhi New Delhi Pan :Akmps8087M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By S/Shri I.P. Bansal & Vivek Bansal, Advocates Respondent By Smt. Rinku Singh, Sr.Dr

section 143(3) of the Act, as against the short-term capital gain of Rs.52,44,274/- declared by the assessee

CHANDER KANTA MAHESHWARI L/H OF LATE SHRI ASHOK KUMAR MAHESHWARI ,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 35(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the Assesseeis allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Pandaa N D Shri N. K. Choudhry(Through Video Conferencing)

274, held that only Section 139 of the Act is mentioned in Section 54(2) of the Act in the context that the unutilized portion of the capital gain

SAURABH ARVIND DESAI,AHMEDABAD vs. ACIT, NOIDA

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri G. D. Agrawal & Ms Suchitra Kamblesaurabh Arvind Desai Vs Acit 11, Rushil Bunglows, B/H Pride Circle-1 Hotel Noida Near Auda Fire Station, Bodakdev Ahmedabad Agmpd2427J (Respondent) (Appellant)

capital gain shown by the assessee. 4. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 was also initiated by issuing notice u/s 274 read with Section

SAHIWAL INVESTMENT & TRADING CO.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kamblesahiwal Investment & Trading Vs Ito Co., Ward 22(2) 4Th Floor, Punjabi Bhawan, New Delhi. 10, Rouse Avenue, New Delhi. Pan No. Aaacs0017J Appellant Respondent

capital gain as claimed by the assessee does not amount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars because the particulars as furnished by the assessee remained the same. It is only the difference in inference as made by each authorities in a different manner. The Ld. AR relied upon the Hon’ble Apex Court decision in case of CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts

HARISH KUMAR HUF,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-34(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Dr. B.R.R. Kumara.Y. : 2015-16

Capital Gain (LTCG) of Rs. 14353921 has been 6 increased to Rs. 34205795 due to the disallowance of Rs. 19851974 u/s. 94(7) of the Act at the first opportunity as soon as it came to the notice of the assesee. Assessee has committed this mistake of furnishing of inaccurate particulars in the return due to the inadvertent bonafide offer

RAVI JAIN,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: : Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2013-14

capital gains as cost of improvement ignoring the fact that the expense of construction cost is allowable deduction u/s 54/54F of the Act if the same is done before the filling of return of income. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred both in law and in facts of the case in making the above disallowance without providing any opportunity