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)

2) section (1) and sub-sections (6) and (7) of section 23A sub- section (5) of section 24, section 34 A A. section 35 and section 37 of the Wealth-tax, Act, 1967 (27 of 1957) shall, with necessary modifications, apply in relation to such reference as they apply in “12. As far as the first question is concerned, this

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-25, NEW DELHI vs. MAHAVEER TRANSMISSION LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result, the all appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Sudhir Kumar

Capital Gains. Thus, the ground no. 1 of appeal of the assessee is allowed and corresponding ground no 2. Of the department is dismissed.”  ITO, Ward-15 (1), Hyderabad Vs. Smt. Vankayalapati Kiranmayee And (Vice-Versa) 2022 (1) TMI 294 - ITAT Hyderabad Dated: - 6-1- 2022 “9. In this regard, we refer to Section 50C

MAHAVIR TRANSMISSION LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-25, NEW DELHI

In the result, the all appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Sudhir Kumar

Capital Gains. Thus, the ground no. 1 of appeal of the assessee is allowed and corresponding ground no 2. Of the department is dismissed.”  ITO, Ward-15 (1), Hyderabad Vs. Smt. Vankayalapati Kiranmayee And (Vice-Versa) 2022 (1) TMI 294 - ITAT Hyderabad Dated: - 6-1- 2022 “9. In this regard, we refer to Section 50C

MAHAVIR TRANSMISSION LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CORCLE-25, NEW DELHI

In the result, the all appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Sudhir Kumar

Capital Gains. Thus, the ground no. 1 of appeal of the assessee is allowed and corresponding ground no 2. Of the department is dismissed.”  ITO, Ward-15 (1), Hyderabad Vs. Smt. Vankayalapati Kiranmayee And (Vice-Versa) 2022 (1) TMI 294 - ITAT Hyderabad Dated: - 6-1- 2022 “9. In this regard, we refer to Section 50C

MAHAVIR TRANSMISSION LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-25, NEW DELHI

In the result, the all appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Sudhir Kumar

Capital Gains. Thus, the ground no. 1 of appeal of the assessee is allowed and corresponding ground no 2. Of the department is dismissed.”  ITO, Ward-15 (1), Hyderabad Vs. Smt. Vankayalapati Kiranmayee And (Vice-Versa) 2022 (1) TMI 294 - ITAT Hyderabad Dated: - 6-1- 2022 “9. In this regard, we refer to Section 50C

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-25, NEW DELHI vs. MAHAVEER TRANSMISSION LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result, the all appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Sudhir Kumar

Capital Gains. Thus, the ground no. 1 of appeal of the assessee is allowed and corresponding ground no 2. Of the department is dismissed.”  ITO, Ward-15 (1), Hyderabad Vs. Smt. Vankayalapati Kiranmayee And (Vice-Versa) 2022 (1) TMI 294 - ITAT Hyderabad Dated: - 6-1- 2022 “9. In this regard, we refer to Section 50C

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-25, NEW DELHI vs. MAHAVEER TRANSMISSION LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the all appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Sudhir Kumar

Capital Gains. Thus, the ground no. 1 of appeal of the assessee is allowed and corresponding ground no 2. Of the department is dismissed.”  ITO, Ward-15 (1), Hyderabad Vs. Smt. Vankayalapati Kiranmayee And (Vice-Versa) 2022 (1) TMI 294 - ITAT Hyderabad Dated: - 6-1- 2022 “9. In this regard, we refer to Section 50C

MAHAVIR TRANSMISSIN LTD ,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-25 , NEW DELHI

In the result, the all appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Sudhir Kumar

Capital Gains. Thus, the ground no. 1 of appeal of the assessee is allowed and corresponding ground no 2. Of the department is dismissed.”  ITO, Ward-15 (1), Hyderabad Vs. Smt. Vankayalapati Kiranmayee And (Vice-Versa) 2022 (1) TMI 294 - ITAT Hyderabad Dated: - 6-1- 2022 “9. In this regard, we refer to Section 50C

BHAGVAT SINGH,KHURJA vs. ITO, WARD- 1(3), BULANDSHAHR

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Anubhav Sharmabhagvat Singh, Vs. Ito, C/O. Jai Kisha, Adv, 86, Ward-1(3), Nai Basti, Khurja, Aligarh Bulandshahr (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Dbwps8579E

2(14) of the IT Act. That being so, a capital gain would be chargeable on the said transfer of land O' w the moot question is what should be taken as the full value of consideration for the purpose of computing the capital gain?. It is seen that w.e.f. 01.04.2017, the following proviso has been inserted in section 50C

CK INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD,DELHI vs. ITO,WARD-6(1), DELHI

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

capital gain in terms with\nsub-section (3) of section 50C. Therefore, sub-section\n(1) to section 50C cannot be considered in isolation. By\nmaking an adjustment of the nature contemplated\nunder sub- section (1) to section 50C, that too, by\nCPC, the Department takes away a valuable statutory\nright given to the assessee to object to the value

ANUBHAV KAPOOR,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - 2(1)(1), GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2016-17]

capital gain account was not eligible for deduction u/s 54(2) of the Act and restricted the deduction at Rs.16,00,000/- as against Rs.1,01,55,000/- claimed by the assessee. 3.4. In this regard, on both the issues, i.e. adoption of sale consideration of the property not as per the provision of section 50C

KRISHNA DEVI,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO, WARD- 1(3), GHAZIABAD

Bench: SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

section 271(1)(c) of the Act are being initiated separately.” 3. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee vide order dated 24/11/2017 and sustained the addition, further directed the AO to re-compute the capital gain of Rs.69

SHANKAR DAYAL HUF,NEW DELHI vs. ITO,WARD-30(7), DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

2 the assessee challenged the addition made on account of enhancement of capital gain under section 50C of the Income

SUDESH SACHDEV ,DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 15, DELHI

In the result appeal is allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deyasstt. Year : 2019-20 Sudesh Sachdev, Vs. Dcit, 147, Ground Floor, Central Circle- 15 Lodhi Road Jorbagh, Delhi. New Delhi 100 003 Pan Ablps5027M (Appellant) (Respondent)

2 the assessee challenged the addition made on account of enhancement of capital gain under section 50C of the Income

SANDEEP HOODA,NEW DELHI vs. PR.CIT - 7, NEW DELHI

The appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated 30

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Anubhav Sharmasandeep Hooda, Vs. Pr. Cit-7, C/O. Rra Taxindia, D-28, South New Delhi Extension, Part-I, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aacph5453J

capital gain has been calculated as regard to reference to the actual sale consideration of Rs. 6,88,00,000/- as against the stamp duty value of property of Rs. 16,63,96,000/-. It was submitted that the submissions were made as to why the fair market value of the property as certified by the Registered Valuer

SATYA DHARMA HOTELS PVT LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 22(4), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Satya Dharma Hotels Pvt. Ltd., Ito, Ward-22(4), New Delhi 110002 177, 1St Floor, Vigyan Vihar, New Delhi 110092 Vs. Pan Aahcs 0289 H (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri P.C Yadav, Adv. Shri Shivam Garg, Ca Shri Raghav Sharma, Ca Revenue For : Shri Vipul Kashyap, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 18.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 09.06.2023 Order Per Chandra Mohan Garg, J.M. This Appeal Has Been Filed Against The Order Of Cit(A)-8, New Delhi Dated 01.03.2019 For Ay 2015-16. 2. The Grounds Of Assessee Are As Follows:- 1. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Order Passed By Cit (A)-08, New Delhi Is Contrary To The Facts & Bad In Law. 2. I) I Am Not Agreeing With The Computation Of Capital Gain Made By Assessing Officer. Ii) During The Assessment, Sec 55A Of Income Tax Act Has Not Been Considered By Assessing Officer For Valuation Of The Land As Requested By Us. Taking Rate Of Registering Authority & Not Consider The Fair Market Value Which Is Very Low. Iii)The Ld. Ao Has Not Considered The Addition Made During The Year & Added Back In The Income Of The Assessee Company. 4. Demand Calculated By A.O. Is Prejudicial To The Company And, If Appeal Is Not Allowed To Be Proceeded It Amounting To Against The Law.

2,26,19,892/- invoking the provisions of section 50C of the I.T Act 1961 (for short the ‘Act’) held that the value of circle rate has to be deemed as consideration received for the purpose of computation of capital gain

MANJEET SINGH BALI,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2012-13] Manjeet Singh Bali, Vs Ito, C/O-Ravi Kumar & Co., Cas, Ward-1(4), House No.64, Sector-9, Ghaziabad. Ghaziabad-201001. Pan-Acepb5753B Appellant Respondent Appellant By S/Shri Gagan Kumar & Vivek Kumar, Advocate Respondent By Shri Om Prakash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 11.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 11.05.2022

Section 50C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for considering the value assessed by stamp duty authority as deemed consideration for computation of capital gain on sale of property are subjective to the facts and merits of the case. That the Assessing Authority could have referred the matter to the valuation officer u/s 50C(2

INDER JEET MALIK ,DELHI vs. ADIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-71(1), DELHI

In the result, the appeal is allowed, as indicated above

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2019-20

capital gain in terms with sub-section (3) of section 50C. Therefore, sub-section (1) to section 50C cannot be considered in isolation. By making an adjustment of the nature contemplated under sub- section (1) to section 50C, that too, by CPC, the Department takes away a valuable statutory right given to the assessee to object to the value determined

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

2,84,382/-• since the assessee had, in the opinion of the A.O. concealed particulars of income amounting to Rs. 15,71,914/-. In appeal the only argument of the Ld. A.R. is that since the capital gain has been calculated on the basis of section 50C