COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-IV vs. M/S. I. K. INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD

capital gains under Section 50(2) of the Act and the refusal to allow deduction under Section 54EC of the Act before the CIT (Appeals). It would appear that before the CIT (Appeals) the assessee submitted valuation reports from an approved valuer in support of the bifurcation of the purchase price between the land and building

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

section 50D of the Act. 3. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in upholding the action of the assessing officer in denying capitalization of interest expenditure aggregating to Rs. 39,95,01,050, as part of the cost of acquisition/cost of improvement while calculating capital gains on sale of shares of SBPL. 3.1. That

ASHOK KUMAR SHAHI,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-61(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhua.Y.: 2014-15

46A, Nerul (Seawoods), Navi Mumbai-400706, vide sale deed executed on 01.11.2013. Assessee’s share in total sale consideration, was Rs. 80,00,000/- (50% of Rs. 1,60,00,000). Assessee has purchased the same property; vide purchase deed executed on 13.10.2006. AR of the assesse has furnished the working of Long Term Capital Gain on the sale

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

46A. The Ld.CIT(A) sought remand report from the AO and copy of AO’s remand report dated 09/02/2024 alluded that the Ld.AO has not commented on the submissions/confirmatory certificate of Ms. Nikita Angirish. It is the case of the appellant that in spite of admission of impugned additional evidences by the Ld. CIT(A), the Ld. AO’s remand

SMT. RANJANA GARG,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the CO of the assessee is allowed and

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaranjana Garg, Vs Dcit 141, Sunder Nagar, Central Circle 12, New Delhi. Jhandewalan Aanpg3625Q Extn., New Delhi. Ranjana Garg, Vs Dcit 141, Sunder Nagar, Central Circle 12, New Delhi. Jhandewalan Aanpg3625Q Extn., New Delhi. Acit Vs Amita Garg, Central Circle 12, G-15, Maharani Bagh, New Delhi. New Delhi. Aadpg0990L Acit Vs Amita Garg, Central Circle 12, G-15, Maharani Bagh, New Delhi. New Delhi. Aadpg0990L

capital gain by admitting the additional evidence in contravention of Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. 3. The appellant craves leave to add, amend any/all the grounds of appeal before or during the course of hearing of the appeal.” 2.2.1 The assessee has also filed an application under Rule 27 of the ITAT Rules for admission and adjudication

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:

section 45(2) of the Act. The assessee got valuation report from approved valuer for cost of acquisition as on 01/04/1981 and fair market value of the land on the date of conversion of stock in trade for its business of real estate in the financial year 2009-10 (corresponding to the assessment year concerned). The assessee computed the long

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. OPG SECURITIES PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

Appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Smt Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishidcit, Vs. Opg Securities Pvt. Ltd, Circle-19(1), Room No. 221, G-190, Preet Vihar, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aaaco1081C (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 55(2)(ab) of the Act were not attracted, Accordingly, the AO recomputed the 'capital gains' by treating indexed cost of acquisition of shares of 8,211 shares as the cost of acquisition, ignoring the cost of membership card of BSE. The aforesaid action of the AO has been challenged before your Honour. Reply to the comments

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

46A) thereon. 3 In the context of the aforesaid issue, the assessment records were gone through and it was noticed that you had inter alia claimed a deduction u/s 54B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, amounting to Rs.7,32, 79, 132/- on the capital gains which we found to have arisen on sale of a land at Punat canoe

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. MAHAJAN INDUSTRIES P. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri L.P. Sahu

46A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. 5.4 The ld. DR also submitted that the assessee acquired 100% rights in the property in the year 1987 and sale agreement was registered in favour of the assessee by the legal heirs of Dr. Raghunath on 30.1.1987. The ld. DR also drew our attention towards assessee’s paper book page

SANJAY JAIN,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

The appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri O.P. Kant Assessment Year: 2010-11 Sanjay Jain, Vs. Acit, Chamber No. 488, Circle 37(1), Delhi High Court Block-Ii. New Delhi. Sher Shah Road, New Delhi. (Pan: Aagpj8607A) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Ra Bansal & Smt. Prem Lata Bansal, Adv. Department By : Smt. Anima Barnwal, Dr Date Of Hearing : 21.03.2016 Date Of Pronouncement: 15 :06.2016 Order Per I.C. Sudhir:The Assessee Has Questioned First Appellate Order On The Following Grounds: 1. That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.16,70,574/- Made By The Assessing Officer To The Long Term Capital Gain Declared By The Assessee At Rs.1,47,823/-. Since The Addition Made By The Assessing Officer Is Contrary To Law & Therefore, Liable To Be Set Aside. 2. That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Ignoring The Cost Of Improvement While Calculating Long Term Capital Gain Earned By The Assessee On Transfer Of Property.

section 55(2) and the term “cost of improvement” has been defined in sec. 55(1)(d). As per the above provisions, cost of any improvement in relation to any capital assets other than good will and manufacturing rights etc. provided in sub-clause (i) 10 means all expenditure of a capital nature incurred in making any additions or alterations

ACIT, JAMMU vs. DR KARAN SINGH, JAMMU

In the result, all the fours appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the three Cross Objections as well as the ground as per Rule 27 are allowed

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

capital gains arising from transfer of shares in Jyoti Pvt. Ltd. Specifically, the dispute is regarding 'Cost of acquisition' of the shares held by the assessee prior to 1.4.1981 in Jyoti (Pvt.) Ltd. He submitted that this is because all the assessees have exercised option under section 55(2)(i) of the I. T. Act that the market value

ACIT, JAMMU vs. SH VIKRAMADITYA SINGH, JAMMU

In the result, all the fours appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the three Cross Objections as well as the ground as per Rule 27 are allowed

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

capital gains arising from transfer of shares in Jyoti Pvt. Ltd. Specifically, the dispute is regarding 'Cost of acquisition' of the shares held by the assessee prior to 1.4.1981 in Jyoti (Pvt.) Ltd. He submitted that this is because all the assessees have exercised option under section 55(2)(i) of the I. T. Act that the market value

ACIT, CIR-II, JAMMU vs. SMT. YASHORAJYA LAXMI, JAMMU

In the result, all the fours appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the three Cross Objections as well as the ground as per Rule 27 are allowed

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

capital gains arising from transfer of shares in Jyoti Pvt. Ltd. Specifically, the dispute is regarding 'Cost of acquisition' of the shares held by the assessee prior to 1.4.1981 in Jyoti (Pvt.) Ltd. He submitted that this is because all the assessees have exercised option under section 55(2)(i) of the I. T. Act that the market value

ACIT, JAMMU vs. SH M.K. AJAT SHATRU, JAMMU

In the result, all the fours appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the three Cross Objections as well as the ground as per Rule 27 are allowed

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

capital gains arising from transfer of shares in Jyoti Pvt. Ltd. Specifically, the dispute is regarding 'Cost of acquisition' of the shares held by the assessee prior to 1.4.1981 in Jyoti (Pvt.) Ltd. He submitted that this is because all the assessees have exercised option under section 55(2)(i) of the I. T. Act that the market value

ITO, FARIDABAD vs. SH RANBIR SINGH,, FARIDABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purpose

section 54B and 54F of the Act and made a revised claim that land in question was not a capital asset, therefore, it was onus on the assessee to establish that land in question was not a capital asset. The Assessing Officer observed that the assessee did not discharge its burden of proof in this regard. We find that learned

ACIT CIRCLE-26(1), NEW DELHI vs. RAHUL NATH, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Krinwant Sahay

46A as appellant was unable to produce the same before the AO due to premises was locked by the landlord due to non payment of rent for a long time. The appellant fulfills the conditions as stipulated under Section 54F as appellant is an individual and capital gain

RAHUL NATH,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CIRCLE-26(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Krinwant Sahay

46A as appellant was unable to produce the same before the AO due to premises was locked by the landlord due to non payment of rent for a long time. The appellant fulfills the conditions as stipulated under Section 54F as appellant is an individual and capital gain

ASHOK KUMAR,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO WARD - 24(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Anil Chaturvedi

section 54 only in respect of long term capital gains on sale of property at 380 Ram Nagar, Delhi. However, the claim of exemption in respect of long term capital gains earned on sale of property at 80 Shanti Vihar, Delhi was disallowed. The A.O. computed the long term capital gains as under : 7 ITA.No.1160/Del./2020 Shri Ashok Kumar