ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. MAX HEALTHCARE INSTITUTE LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu, Hon‟Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharma

Capital Gain is not attracted on such transactions, section 47A(1) prescribe certain conditions on which the transactions shall not be considered

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. MAX HEALTHCARE INSTITUTE LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu, Hon‟Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharma

Capital Gain is not attracted on such transactions, section 47A(1) prescribe certain conditions on which the transactions shall not be considered

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. MAX HEALTHCARE INSTITUTE LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu, Hon‟Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharma

Capital Gain is not attracted on such transactions, section 47A(1) prescribe certain conditions on which the transactions shall not be considered

YOGESH JUNEJA,FARIDABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-29(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the Appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Sh. Yogesh Kumar Usi.T.A. No. 218/Del/2020 (A.Y 2015-16)

47A of the Stamp Act or rules made there under about the adoption of the guideline value. Hence, the contention that the Section 50C is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 cannot be accepted." The fiction created by virtue of Section 50C applies only in respect of escaped income of a seller, for the determination of the true capital gain

CIT vs. KHOOBSURAT RESORTS PVT LTD

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

47A of the Stamp Act or rules made thereunder about the adoption of the guideline value. Hence, the contention that the Section 50C is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 cannot be accepted.” The fiction created by virtue of Section 50C applies only in respect of escaped income of a seller, for the determination of the true capital gain

CIT vs. KHOOBSURAT RESORTS PVT LTD

47A of the Stamp Act or rules made thereunder about the adoption of the guideline value. Hence, the contention that the Section 50C is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 cannot be accepted.” The fiction created by virtue of Section 50C applies only in respect of escaped income of a seller, for the determination of the true capital gain

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. WELD ALLOYS PRODUCTS LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: : Shri H.S. Sindhu & Shri L.P. Sahuassessment Year: 2010-11

Section 3 of 47A of IT Act, 1961. He accordingly, treated the difference between the value of immovable assets, shown on 31.03.2009 and 01.04.09, amounting to Rs.3,08,88,548/- as capital gain

M/S. SHEELA FOADM (P) LTD.,,DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Sh. I.C. Sudhir & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2004-05 M/S. Sheela Foam (P.) Ltd., C-55, Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Preet Vihar, Vikas Marg, Delhi Tax, Circle-8(1), New Delhi Gir/Pan : Aaacs0189B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By S/Sh. Ajay Vohra & Gaurav Jain, Advocates; Ms. Bhavita Kumar, Adv. Respondent By Smt. Anima Barnwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 13.04.2016 Date Of Pronouncement 02.06.2016 Order Per O.P. Kant, A.M.: This Appeal Of The Assessee Is Directed Against Order Dated 17/08/1012 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-Xi, New Delhi, For Assessment Year 2004-05 In Respect Of Penalty Levied Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short “The Act”) By The Assessing Officer. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Under: 1. That The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Erred On Facts & In Law In Not Holding That The Order Dated 27.03.2009 Passed By The Assessing Officer Levying Penalty Under Section 271(1 )(C) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) Was Beyond Jurisdiction, Bad In Law & Void Ab Initio. 1.1 That The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Erred On Facts & In Law In Not Holding That The Penalty Order Under Section 271(1 )(C) Was Beyond Jurisdiction, Bad In Law & Void Ab-Initio, In As Much As The Same Was Initiated On Issues For Which No Prima Facie Satisfaction, Qua Concealment/Furnishing Of Inaccurate Particulars Of Income, Was Discernible From The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Act. Without Prejudice 2. That The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Erred On Facts & In Law

47A(7) of the Act even though specifically mentioned in the Audit Report in form No. 3CD. In the facts of the case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under: “18. The fact that the Tax Audit Report was filed along with the return and that it unequivocally stated that the provision for payment was not allowable under