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)

capital gain on sale of land u/s 50C read with section 48 of the Act and assessed the income of the assessee at Rs. 8,44,70,000/- u/s. 144/147 of the Act, 3

UMA DUTT PALIWAL PROP.,PANIPAT vs. ADDL. CIT, PANIPAT

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastavaay: 2008-09 Uma Dutt Paliwal, Vs Addl. Cit, Prop. Paliwal Home Furnishing, Karnal. Panipat. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Gurjeet Singh, Ca Respondent By: Shri O.P.Meena, Sr. Dr

capital gains under Section 48. By the Explanatory notes to the amendment it was clarified that - Section 50C is a special provision for (1) determining the full value of consideration in cases of transfer of immovable property, being land or building or both; Section 50C provides that where the (2) consideration declared to be received or accruing as a result

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

section 50C of the Act, the sale consideration for the purpose of computing capital 3 gain, was to be taken

SMT. ANITA MIGLANI,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO, GHAZIABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

50C of the Act at a figure of Rs. 64,07,515/- and further to calculate the long term capital gain of Rs. (-) 41,57,485 by adopting full value of consideration received thereby observing that the deduction under section 54F and 54(1 )(a) would be NIL resulting into net taxable long term capital gain

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)

capital gain has calculated and worked out the addition of Rs.30,17,456/- to the income as per working considering the full value of consideration as per Section 50C while determining exemption. The assessee filed appeal before the 3

PREM NATH,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

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

capital gains mentioned in section 50C (1) are applicable to section 48 and not exemption provisions as mentioned in section 54 to section 54F. 5 ITA No.1659/Del./2013 3

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

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 pursuant to section 2(47)(vi) and section 50C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by considering the mere transfer of shares as transfer of ownership of land held as fixed assets by the company in which the assessee was a shareholder. 3

NOIDA CYBER PARK PVT LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 18(4), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed as above

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaay : 2015-16

3. Although the assessee has preferred multiple Grounds of Appeal, but essentially the solitary grievance raised by the assessee is with regard to invoking of Section 50C of the Act and making an addition of Rs. 240,91,67,743/- to the returned income by the Assessing Officer. 4. Briefly put, the relevant facts are that the appellant

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

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 shall

LALIT MOHAN GUPTA,DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhua.Y. : 2009-10 Lalit Mohan Gupta Vs. Ito, Ward 20(4), D-125, Mahendru New Delhi Enclave, Delhi – 110009 (Pan: Ahtpg3030A) (Appellant) (Respondent)

capital gain by applying provisions of section 50C of the Act on the basis of circle rate at the time of execution of sale deed. Accordingly, he completed the assessment at an income of Rs. 34,07,860/- after making other additions vide his order dated 29.12.2011 passed u/s. 143(3

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)

3), (4), (5) and (6) of section 16A, clause (i) of sub- (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

SHRI BALAJI INDUSTRIES COMPLEX,BADAUN vs. CIT, MORADABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri N.K.Billaiya & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2009-10 Balaji Industries Complex, Cit, Ismailpur, Moradabad-244001 Vs Badaun. (Pan: Abefs3007Q) Appellant Respondent Assessee By: Mr. Abhinav Mehrotra, Adv. Department By: Smt. Meeta Singh C.I.T. Dr Date Of Hearing: 19.06.2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 17.09.2018

3) r/w 147 wherein the short term capital gain was computed at Rs. 22,86,227/-. The assessee had sold an entire cold storage plant consisting of land, building and plant and machinery for a sum of Rs. 99,30,000/-. The Assessing Officer, while making the assessment, calculated the short term capital gain by calculating the difference between sale

MANOJ MITTAL,DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

capital gains (section 50C), business profits (section 43CA) and other sources (section 56) arising out of transactions in immovable property, the sale consideration or stamp duty value, whichever is higher is adopted. The difference is taxed as income both in the hands of the (Manoj Mittal) purchaser and the seller. It has been pointed out that this variation can occur

BETTER OPTION ESTATES PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Shri K.N. Chary

capital gains of Rs.6,49,69,400/- on the sale proceeds of immovable properties situated in SEZ, Jaipur for Rs.16,34,13,960/- in its computation of income. On being asked to submit the details and explain, the assessee submitted that the relevant land was purchased in the financial year 2006-07 at Rs.6,28,95,310/- and the cost

AMRIT LAL JAIN,SONEPAT vs. ITO, SONEPAT

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee has been partly allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Smt. Beena Pillai

gain Rs. 3,37,540 (1174200 – 836660) 12. Aggrieved by the order of the ld.AO, the appellant preferred appeal before the ld.CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) was also not convinced with the arguments as in his opinion the respondent -appellant is in constructed possession of the said plot. In view of the above and similarly the constructive possession

ANURAG TYAGI,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO, WARD- 1(1), GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Hon’Ble & Ms. Suchitra Kambleita No. 2626/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Anurag Tyagi, Vs Income Tax Officer, S/O R B Tyagi, Flat No. 303, Ward-1(1), Super Tech, Avant Grade Plot Ghaziabad No. 1, Sector-5, Vaishali, Ghaziabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aagpt6848P Assessee By : Sh. Anup Sharma, Adv. & Sh. Sanjay Prasar, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Surendra Pal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 19.09.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.11.2018 Order Per N. K. Saini: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 09.01.2018 Of Ld. Cit(A), Ghaziabad.

3. From the above grounds, it is gathered that only grievance of the assessee relates to the rejection of claim for deduction u/s 54 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 4. Facts of the case in brief are that an action u/s 147 of the Act was taken after recording the reasons