MONI KUMAR SUBBA,DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result ground No. 2 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2006-07 Dcit, Vs. Sh. Moni Kumar Subba, Central Circle-4, New Delhi Subba Farm House, 118, Village Sultanpur, Mehrauli, Gurgaon Road, Delhi Pan :Aasps1484J (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2006-07 Shri. Moni Kumar Subba, Vs. Acit, Subba Farm House, 118, Central Circle-4, E-2, Ara Village Sultanpur, Mehrauli, Centre, Jhandewalan Extn., Gurgaon Road, Delhi New Delhi Pan :Aasps1484J (Appellant) (Respondent)

capital gain arising from transfer of leasing rights of the land located at Silliguri and Darjeeling. The Ld. CIT(A) held the leasing of the land as in the nature of ‘transfer’ in terms of provisions of section 2(47) of the Act and treated the prevailing market value of the property ( deemed consideration under section 50C

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 in pursuance to section 2(47)(vi) and section 50C of the Act by considering the transfer of shares

NARENDRA KUMAR SINGH,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAQL CIRCLE-15, , NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2013-14 Shri Narendra Kumar Singh, Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of C/O- Vivek Bansal, 2Nd Floor, Income Tax, B-3/4, Safdarjung Enclave, Central Circle-15, New Delhi New Delhi Pan :Akmps8087M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By S/Shri I.P. Bansal & Vivek Bansal, Advocates Respondent By Smt. Rinku Singh, Sr.Dr

gains of the business”, as an alternative, prior to invoking section 50C of the Act, the Assessing Officer should have referred the matter for valuation of the property to the Ld. District Valuation Officer. In support of his contention that for invoking section 50C of the Act, the Assessing Officer was bound to make reference to the DVO under section

MR. RANJEET SINGH,GURGAON vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year 2005-06

gain. In the appeal proceedings addition was deleted considering appellants arguments that there was no provision in the Income Tax Act to substitute sale consideration with fair market value of a capital asset other than immovable property referred to in section 50C. However it was observed by the Ld. CIT(A) that the real value of shares of Eltek

MR. KRISHNA KUMAR PANT,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year 2005-06

gain. In the appeal proceedings addition was deleted considering appellants arguments that there was no provision in the Income Tax Act to substitute sale consideration with fair market value of a capital asset other than immovable property referred to in section 50C. However it was observed by the Ld. CIT(A) that the real value of shares of Eltek

MR. SANJIV NARAYAN,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year 2005-06

gain. In the appeal proceedings addition was deleted considering appellants arguments that there was no provision in the Income Tax Act to substitute sale consideration with fair market value of a capital asset other than immovable property referred to in section 50C. However it was observed by the Ld. CIT(A) that the real value of shares of Eltek

MR. J.S. GUJRAL,GURGAON vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year 2005-06

gain. In the appeal proceedings addition was deleted considering appellants arguments that there was no provision in the Income Tax Act to substitute sale consideration with fair market value of a capital asset other than immovable property referred to in section 50C. However it was observed by the Ld. CIT(A) that the real value of shares of Eltek

DHARA SINGH,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), GHAZIABAD

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri T.S. Kapooray: 2012-13 Dhara Singh Ito, Ward 1(2), C/O Rupinder Kumar Vs. Ghaziabad Aggarwal, Uttar Pradesh Advocate, Ab-1A/22, Sector-51, Noida -201301 (Pan: Czjps0155A) (Assessee) (Respondent)

section 48 of the I.T. Act. In accordance with the provisions of 50C the difference of Rs. 2,04,99,000/- is chargeable to tax under the held capital Gain

SMT. ANITA MIGLANI,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO, GHAZIABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri O. P. Meena

capital gain on the sale of the property by adopting deemed sale 2 I.T.A No. 2235/Del/2016 value under section 50C

GURBAKSHISH SINGH BATRA,NEW DELHI vs. PR. CIT - 12, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri N.K. Choudhryassessment Year: 2016-17 Gurbakshish Singh Batra, Vs Pr.Cit-12, E-1511, Wazir Nagr, New Delhi. Kotla Mubarakpur, New Delhi. Pan: Adspb2480J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri R.S. Singhvi, Ca Revenue By : Shri Shashi Bhushan Sukla, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 15.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.03.2022 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 22Nd March, 2021 Of The Pcit, Delhi-12, Passed U/S 263 Of The It Act For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Filed His Return Of Income On 6Th October, 2016 Declaring The Total Income At Rs.44,86,160/-. The Return Was Processed U/S 143(1) Of The It Act. Subsequently, The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For ‘Limited Scrutiny’ Based On The Following Reasons:-

Section 50C of the Act. The Assessing Officer has not made any disallowance u/s 50C of the Act. She further noted that the assessee got possession of land on 26.11.2015, the lease deed was registered on 21.01.2016 and sold the same on 16.02.2016. The period of holding was less than 36 months and, therefore, 2 the Capital Gain

PREM NATH,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri J.S. Reddy & Shri Kuldip Singh

capital gains computed by invoking provisions of section 50C(1) instead of sale consideration as mentioned in the sale deed. 2

SUNIL MIGLANI,GHAZIABAD vs. DCIT, GHAZIABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Ms Suchitra Kamblesunil Miglani Vs Dcit Kj-2, Kavi Nagar Central Circle New Delhi Ghaziabad (Appellant) (Respondent)

50C is limited only to the extent and for the purpose of section 48 and this deeming fiction cannot be extended or interpreted as meant for the purpose of other provisions of the Act including Section 54F. The process of arriving at capital gains and exemptions are distinct and separate and one does not override the other. Section

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

50C of the Act was already on the statute prior to the former section being incorporated in the Act. If section 50D of the Act was sufficient to capture the situation as in the present case, then there was no necessity to insert provision of Section 50CA of the Act in the statute by the Finance Act, 2017 w.e.f

ANITA MIGLANI,GHAZIABAD vs. DCIT, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

50C is limited only to the extent and for the purpose of section 48 and this deeming fiction cannot be extended or interpreted as meant for the purpose of other provisions of the Act including Section 54F. The process of arriving at capital gains and exemptions are distinct and separate and one does not override the other. Section

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

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