KAPIL KUMAR AGARWAL,GURGAON vs. DCIT, GURGAON

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishikapil Kumar Agarwal, Vs. Dcit, C/O. Ipsaa House Anm & Circle-1(1), Associates, J021A, Mayfiled Gurgaoon Gardens, Sector-51, Gurgaon Pan: Aacpa2412L (Appellant) (Respondent)

capital gains arising from the sale of the Golf Link house to the extent it got invested in the construction of the Surya Nagar house, will be exempted under section 54 of the Act." 8. Commissioner (Appeals) in his order while accepting the plea of the assessee has referred to several judgments of the Tribunal thereafter in which the aforesaid

ANALJIT SINGH,DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 16(2), DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P.Kant

Capital Company Ltd. (‘ KMCC’) to carry out an equity valuation of SBP as of February 28, 2014 (“Valuation Date”) and provide the price per share of SBP, in relation to the proposed acquisition of shares of SBP that CGP does not already own from the Sellers. SBP, through a series of companies in the HoldCo Chain, is an indirect shareholder

MANISH TYAGI,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO, GHAZIABAD

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Manish Tyagi, Vs. Ito, House No. 131, Sector-6, Ward-1(4), Chiranjeev Vihar, Ghaziabad Ghaziabad Pan: Acgpt1413J (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 54F of the Income Tax Act in respect of capital gain of T56,55,874/-. 11. That the Assessing Officer and consequently the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not giving benefit of investment of ?57,79,893/- made by Mr Ashok Tyagi in a residential flat situated at A- 302

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" • CIT v. Sardarmal Kothari, He (Madras), [2008] 302 ITR 286 "Assessee also produced completion certificates from municipal authority, Assessing Officer was not justified in rejecting assessee s claim for exemption of capital gain

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. SHRI AKSHAY SOBTI, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the 02 appeals filed by the Revenue stand

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year: 2012-13

capital gains of Rs. 7,16,65,302/-. Against the same, the Assessee claimed exemption u/s 54 of the Act of Rs. 3,00,86,525/- towards the amounts paid to M/s DLF towards construction of house at DLF Magnolias Golf Links, and a further sum of Rs. 1,01,06,737/- towards bank charges and cost of improvement

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. SHRI PRADEEP SOBTI, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the 02 appeals filed by the Revenue stand

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year: 2012-13

capital gains of Rs. 7,16,65,302/-. Against the same, the Assessee claimed exemption u/s 54 of the Act of Rs. 3,00,86,525/- towards the amounts paid to M/s DLF towards construction of house at DLF Magnolias Golf Links, and a further sum of Rs. 1,01,06,737/- towards bank charges and cost of improvement

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

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Section 132 (4A) on the basis of these two statements. It is a matter of the record - duly noted by the CIT (A) as well as ITAT that the three companies or business concerns whose monies were supposed to have been reflected in the handwritten ledgers (Bondwell Insurance Brokers, E-Synergy Infosystems Pvt. Ltd. and Paradigm Advertising) were all concerns

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

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Section 132 (4A) on the basis of these two statements. It is a matter of the record - duly noted by the CIT (A) as well as ITAT that the three companies or business concerns whose monies were supposed to have been reflected in the handwritten ledgers (Bondwell Insurance Brokers, E-Synergy Infosystems Pvt. Ltd. and Paradigm Advertising) were all concerns

ACIT (LTU), NEW DELHI vs. MAX NEW YORK LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year : 2002-03

302 312.5 SVP 364 375 5. In the light of the above, it was claimed that its international transaction was at arm’s length. The TPO did not accept the application of CUP as the most appropriate method as the consulting firms whose rates were cited in the TP study report were only quotations and not 4 actual rates. Such

M/S. HAVELLS INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Ms Suchitra Kamble(Through Video Conferencing) Vs Havells India Ltd. Acit 1, Raj Narian Marg, Ltu Civil Lines New Delhi New Delhi Aaach0351E (Respondent) (Appellant)

302 ITR 208 (Ahemdabad) (SB) and without appreciating the facts of the case and correct position in law, held that in terms of section 80-IA(5) of the Act, losses of eligible undertakings viz., Baddi Unit-2 and Haridwar Unit, relating to earlier assessment years 2006-07 and 2007-08 was required to be set off on a notional

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. DIVYA SHAKTI TRADING SERVICES LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant

Section 111 (A), since it was its business.” 7. Ld. CIT(A) after considering the submission in the entire factum of the material placed on record, accepted the assessee’s contention and heavily relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Gopal Purohit (2010) 188 Taxman 140 (Bom). The relevant finding

KIRAN KUMAR HUF,REWARI vs. ITO, WARD- 1, REWARI

Accordingly, Ground Nos. 1 to 1.3 taken together are allowed

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Kuldip Singh(Through Video Conference)

302 Marla) Rs. 1,96,57,084/- Less: Cost of Acquisition 29294/-(30297=29294/-) Indexed Cost = 170491/- (29294*582/100=170491/-) Rs. 1,70,491/- Long Term Capital Gains Rs.1,94,86,593/- As the Long-term Capital Gain has been shown at Capital Loss of Rs 42,918/- , therefore, Long-term Capital gain to the extent

ASHOK KUMAR BANSAL,GURGAON vs. PR, CIT CENTRAL DELHI-1, DELHI

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

capital gains arising from the sale of loose diamonds and the said issue since the subject matter before the Ld. CIT(A), decision on the said issue is squarely out of the jurisdiction that the Ld. PCIT in terms of the mandatory provision of Clause C of Explanation 1 to Section 263 of the Act. In this regard

ASHOK KUMAR BANSAL,GURGAON vs. PR, CIT CENTRAL, DELHI-1, DELHI

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

capital gains arising from the sale of loose diamonds and the said issue since the subject matter before the Ld. CIT(A), decision on the said issue is squarely out of the jurisdiction that the Ld. PCIT in terms of the mandatory provision of Clause C of Explanation 1 to Section 263 of the Act. In this regard

ASHOK KUMAR BANSAL,GURGAON vs. PR, CIT CENTRAL DELHI-1, DELHI

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

capital gains arising from the sale of loose diamonds and the said issue since the subject matter before the Ld. CIT(A), decision on the said issue is squarely out of the jurisdiction that the Ld. PCIT in terms of the mandatory provision of Clause C of Explanation 1 to Section 263 of the Act. In this regard

THE SOCIETY OF THE SISTERS OF OTHE DISTIITUTE,DELHI vs. ACIT,CPC, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 5372/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 The Society Of The Sisters Of The Vs Acit, Destitute, Jivodaya Hospital, Ashok Cpc, Vihar, New Delhi-110052 Bangalore (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aacts9595A Assessee By : Sh. Raman Murali, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Prakash Dubey, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 26.07.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.08.2021

302/-. 8. Extracts of Section 11(1A) is given below: “(1A) For the purposes of sub-section (1),- (a) where a capital asset, being property held under trust wholly for charitable or religious purposes, is transferred and the whole or any part of the net consideration is utilized for acquiring another capital asset to be so held, then, the capital

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - XV vs. BHARTI MISHRA

capital gains arising from the sale of the Golf Link house to the extent it got invested in the construction of the Surya Nagar house, will be exempted under section 54 of the Act.” 8. Commissioner (Appeals) in his order while accepting the plea of the assessee has referred to several judgments of the Tribunal thereafter in which the aforesaid

M/S. UNITECH LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result this issue is allowed in favour of the assessee

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

gain. In the result, these grounds are allowed. 16. The next issue relates to disallowance to Rs. 23,71,65,830/- by recharacterizing the share application money as interest free advance. The facts in brief are that the assessee has shown sum of Rs. 4,30,24,00,000/- as an outstanding balance of share application money as on 31st