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

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

3) of the Act provides, where the capital gain arising from the transfer of a capital asset referred to in clause (iv) or, as the case may be, clause (v) of section 47 is deemed to be income chargeable under the head "Capital gains" by virtue of the provisions contained in section 47A

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

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

3) of the Act provides, where the capital gain arising from the transfer of a capital asset referred to in clause (iv) or, as the case may be, clause (v) of section 47 is deemed to be income chargeable under the head "Capital gains" by virtue of the provisions contained in section 47A

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

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

3) of the Act provides, where the capital gain arising from the transfer of a capital asset referred to in clause (iv) or, as the case may be, clause (v) of section 47 is deemed to be income chargeable under the head "Capital gains" by virtue of the provisions contained in section 47A

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

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

3) of the Act provides, where the capital gain arising from the transfer of a capital asset referred to in clause (iv) or, as the case may be, clause (v) of section 47 is deemed to be income chargeable under the head "Capital gains" by virtue of the provisions contained in section 47A

CIT vs. KHOOBSURAT RESORTS PVT LTD

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

3) of Section 50C provides further safeguard to the assessee, in the sense that if the assessee claims before the assessing officer that the value adopted by the stamp duty authorities exceeds the fair market value and the value so adopted or assessed for the purpose of stamp duty has ITA 776/2011 Page 10 not been disputed in any appeal

CIT vs. KHOOBSURAT RESORTS PVT LTD

3) of Section 50C provides further safeguard to the assessee, in the sense that if the assessee claims before the assessing officer that the value adopted by the stamp duty authorities exceeds the fair market value and the value so adopted or assessed for the purpose of stamp duty has 2012:DHC:6704-DB ITA 776/2011 Page 10 not been

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

3. The grounds no. 1 and 1.1 are not pressed by the learned Authorized Representative of the assessee and, therefore, we dismiss the same as infructuous. 4. In grounds no. 2 to 2.5, the assessee has challenged levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act in respect of excess deduction claimed