DCIT, CIRCLE 52(1), NEW DELHI vs. BHUPINDER SINGH BHALLA, NEW DELHI

Appeal of the revenue is dismissed

capital gain arising from sale of agricultural land on ground\nthat purchaser of land was a builder and thus, sald piece of land was not\nagricultural land, since view taken by Assessing Officer while rejecting\nassessee's claim was not in consonance with requirements made under\nsection 54B, Impugned order passed by him was to be set aside.\"\nHence, once

VANEET AGGARWAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-14(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

capital gains arising out of sale of different\nshares as fair and transparent by submitting records of purchase bills, sale\nbills, demat statement etc., same not being earned from bogus companies\nwas eligible for exemption under section 10(38).\nPr. CIT 1 v. Parasben Kasturchand Kochar (2021) 282

SAKET KANOI,GURGAON vs. DCIT INTL. TAXATION, GURGAON

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Yogesh Kumar Us

282 of 2007 dt : 28-11-2007 made changes amending the India UAE Treaty meaning that taxability in one of the contracting state is not a sine qua non to avail treaty benefits as appreciated by the Hon’ble Mumbai ITAT in Meera Bhatia case dt : 29-10-09.” 3. During the scrutiny proceedings, it was noted that the assessee

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

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 ORDER PER KUL BHARAT, JM : The present appeal filed by the assessee for the assessment year 2009- 10 is directed against the order

SUMIT DANG,DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 30, DELHI

In the result, all the five appeals of the respective assessees are

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2019-20

Section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”), dated 20.05.2021 passed by ACIT, Central Circle-30, Delhi for the common assessment year 2019-20. 2. Common issue is involved in all the five appeals on account of Long Term Capital Gain on sale of property which was a joint property of the five

RAJEEV KUMAR,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-30, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the five appeals of the respective assessees are

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2019-20

Section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”), dated 20.05.2021 passed by ACIT, Central Circle-30, Delhi for the common assessment year 2019-20. 2. Common issue is involved in all the five appeals on account of Long Term Capital Gain on sale of property which was a joint property of the five

RAMESH CHAND,DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-30, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the five appeals of the respective assessees are

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2019-20

Section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”), dated 20.05.2021 passed by ACIT, Central Circle-30, Delhi for the common assessment year 2019-20. 2. Common issue is involved in all the five appeals on account of Long Term Capital Gain on sale of property which was a joint property of the five

ANIL KUMAR,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-30, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the five appeals of the respective assessees are

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2019-20

Section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”), dated 20.05.2021 passed by ACIT, Central Circle-30, Delhi for the common assessment year 2019-20. 2. Common issue is involved in all the five appeals on account of Long Term Capital Gain on sale of property which was a joint property of the five

ACE CABS LIMITED,DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(2), DELHI, C R BUILDING

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanace Cabs Limited, Vs. Acit, Circle 1 (2), 562, Silver Oak Lane, Delhi. M.G. Road, Ghitorni, Delhi – 110 030. (Pan : Aaica4494R) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Gaurav Jain, Advocate Ms. Bharti Sharma, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 23.07.2024 Date Of Order : 04.10.2024 Order Per S.Rifaur Rahman,Am: 1. This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), New Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short]/ National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) Dated 12.12.2023 For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Submitted An Application Under Rule 29 Of The Itat Rules For Admitting The Additional Evidences & The Contents Thereof Are Reproduced Below:-

282-289&318-319) (xi) Copies of Form PAS 3 filed with the ROC, along with board resolutions, list of allottees and Minutes of the Meeting, for the allotment of 899 preference shares to M/s Click Cab Technology in the preceding FY 2015-16 (AY 2016-17) and 1818preference shares in the current FY 2016-17 (AY 2017-18).(Refer

AJAY KUMAR,GHAZIABAD vs. PR. CIT (CENTRAL), MEERUT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

capital gains of Rs.8,74,51,109/- arisen on sale of shares of M/s. CCL International Ltd., claimed as exempt under section 10(38) of the Act had been examined by the Assessing Officer (AO) in depth. It was also submitted before us that the assessee had filed the copy of the Tribunal order in the case of Mukta Gupta

RAM KUMAR TYAGI,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

capital gains that should be assessed in the hands of the HUF, not the individual assessee. The addition for agricultural income was upheld due to lack of evidence.", "result": "Partly Allowed", "sections": [ "147", "148", "143(3)", "142(1)", "143(2)", "250", "292B", "281B", "282

ROHIT MANCHAND,DELHI vs. ITO WARD 5(3)(2), GAUTAM BUDH NAGAR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

282 (1) of the Act r/w. Order V Rule 12 CPC and Order III Rule 6 CPC. Further held -onus is on the revenue to show that proper service of notice has been affected on the assessee or an agent duly empowered by him to accept the notices. RACHNA GUPTA VS. ITO (ITA NO. 5527/DEL/2012, order

HASAMEEN ,MEERUT U.P. vs. ITO, WARD-1(2)(4) MEERUT U.P, MEERUT (U.P)

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Learned First Appellate

282, Boundary Road, Civil New Delhi Lane, Meerut, U.P. PIN: 250001 PAN :ASLPH3796D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Shri Mohit Kumar, Adv. Respondent by Shri Om Parkash, Sr. DR Date of hearing 13.07.2022 Date of pronouncement 29.07.2022 ORDER This is an appeal by the assessee against order dated 14.09.2021 passed by National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi for the assessment year

AAKANKSHA GUPTA,DELHI vs. ITO WARD 69(1), NEW DELHI, DELHI

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

Bench: Shrimahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shrisanjay Awasthiआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2763/Del/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 बनाम Aakanksha Gupta, Income Tax Officer, C/O Ca Vaibhav Goel, Vs. Ward 69(1), 78, Navyug Market, 1St Floor, New Delhi. Ghazaibad, Uttar Pradesh. Pan No.Amhpg9430D अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

capital gain and assessee is also entitled for the deduction u/s 54, but instead of verifying the claim, the same is not considered and addition of Rs.72,99,800/- is made hurriedly, hence addition is arbitrary. 15. Therefore, it is prayed that the notice/order under question may kindly be quashed. However, as an alternative it is also prayed that

GAURAV SINGHAL,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-17(4), NEW DELHI

Bench: Sh. Pradip Kumar Kedia & Sh. Anubhav Sharmagaurav Singhal Vs. Ito, 149, Tarun Enclave, Ward-17(4), Pitampura, C.R.Building, New Delhi-110034 New Delhi-110002 Pan : Aohps3787D (Appellant) (Respondent)

Capital Gains being Exempt from Tax u/s 10(38), the same were not disclosed by the assessee in the ITR. The plea of the assessee regarding no transactions with Mr. Ashok Kumar Kayan or Mr. Sunil Kumar Kayan was considered to be not relevant as in the reasons recorded, it was clearly mentioned that the case of the assessee

ARGOS HOLDINGS PTE. LTD.,SINGAPORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE INT TAX 1(1)(1), DELHI, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

capital gain of Rs.1,55,67,260 that was already subject to tax in the state of residence, i.e. Singapore. Cessation of Indian Investments In F.Y. 2019-2020, the Singapore-based Board of Directors of Argos sanctioned and Dissolution of the Appellant voluntary winding up. dated 5th Intimation March 2021 was thereafter placed before the Accounting and Corporate Regulatory Authority

ARGOS HOLDINGS PTE. LTD.,SINGAPORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE INT TAX 1(1)(1), DELHI, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

capital gain of Rs.1,55,67,260 that was already subject to tax in the state of residence, i.e. Singapore. Cessation of Indian Investments In F.Y. 2019-2020, the Singapore-based Board of Directors of Argos sanctioned and Dissolution of the Appellant voluntary winding up. dated 5th Intimation March 2021 was thereafter placed before the Accounting and Corporate Regulatory Authority

DUSHYANT BHATI,NOIDA vs. PCIT, NOIDA, NOIDA

In the result, the appeal of appellant/assessee is allowed

282 (SC).\n7. Learned Authorised Representative for the Revenue submitted that\nExplanation 2 has been inserted in section 263 of the Act and Finance Act,2015\nw.e.f. 01.06.2015. After giving notice to the assessee, Ld. PCIT pointed out\ndiscrepancies in the order dated 23.03.2022.\n8. Learned Authorized Representative for the Revenue submitted that\nExplanation 2 has been inserted in section