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

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)

Section 50C, in case of transfer of a capital asset being land or building on both, the value adopted or assessed by the stamp valuation authority for the purpose of payment of stamp duty shall be taken as the full value of consideration for the purposes of computation of capital gains

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]

section 50C of Rs.1,62,47,700/-) to Dr. Mamta Gaur and Dr. Ajay Kumar on 17.02.2016. The AO noted that this property was received by the assessee through Will executed on 19.03.2004 from his grandmother Smt. Sarojni Devi Kapoor and the assessee had worked out the capital gains

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

50C(1), the agreement to sell is relevant. 17. Thus, for the purpose of determining the nature of capital assets and consequent calculation of capital gains, the relevant date would be when the right, title or interest got extinguished in vendor and in substance same vested in the vendee. As the case is covered by Section

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

capital gain in terms with sub-section (3) of section 50C. Therefore, sub-section (1) to section 50C cannot be 8 Shankar

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

capital gain has been calculated on the basis of section 50C which is a legal fiction penalty is not leviable

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)

capital gain in terms with sub-section (3) of section 50C. Therefore, sub-section (1) to section 50C cannot be considered

SHIVDEEEP TYAGI,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO,WARD-2(3), GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 50C of the Act would not be applicable while computing capital gains on transfer of leased hold rights in Land

SIGMA PARADISE,GHAZIABAD vs. DCIT, WARD 2(2)(1), GHAZIABAD

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2013-14 Sigma Paradise, Vs Dcit, Km-78, Kavi Nagar, Ward 2(2)(1), Ghaziabad, Ghaziabad. Uttar Pradesh – 201 002. Pan:Aazfs9643L (Appellants) (Respondents) Assessee By : Shri Rajiv Khandelwal, Ca; & Shri Gagan R. Khandelwal & Shri Jaind Kumar Jaiswal, Advocates Revenue By : Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 18.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.11.2025

Capital Gain Rs. 401338/- 3. The case of assesse was reopened u/s. 147 of Act in order to verify the fact that the perusal of sale deed showed that the stamp value of land was Rs. 8,81,68,000/-. Ld. AO took note of the provision of Section 50C

SH. RAJESH KAKKAR,KARNAL vs. PR. CIT, KARNAL

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2013-14 Sigma Paradise, Vs Dcit, Km-78, Kavi Nagar, Ward 2(2)(1), Ghaziabad, Ghaziabad. Uttar Pradesh – 201 002. Pan:Aazfs9643L (Appellants) (Respondents) Assessee By : Shri Rajiv Khandelwal, Ca; & Shri Gagan R. Khandelwal & Shri Jaind Kumar Jaiswal, Advocates Revenue By : Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 18.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.11.2025

Capital Gain Rs. 401338/- 3. The case of assesse was reopened u/s. 147 of Act in order to verify the fact that the perusal of sale deed showed that the stamp value of land was Rs. 8,81,68,000/-. Ld. AO took note of the provision of Section 50C

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

DCIT, CIRCLE - 19(1), NEW DELHI vs. RAPID ENGINEERING COMPANY PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandrathe Dy. C.I.T Vs. Rapid Engineering Co. Pvt Ltd Circle – 19(1) 111-112, Dsidc Sheds Delhi Okhla Phase – 1, New Delhi

Section 50C is. In terms of this provision, if the property is sold below the stamp duty valuation rate, which is often called circle rate, this stamp duty valuation report is assumed as sale consideration for the property in question, and, accordingly, capital gains

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 claimed by assessee u/s 54 of the Act. The question of not only eligibility but even quantum of deduction was under examination. Section 50C

MONI KUMAR SUBBA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-08, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Yogesh Kumar Usshri Moni Kumar Subba Vs. Acit 118, Subba Farm House, Central Circle – 08, Vill. Sultanpur, Mehrauli New Delhi Gurgaon Road Delhi – 110 030 Pan No. Aasps 1484 J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri R. S. Singhvi, C.A. Shri Satyajeet Goel, C.A. Shri Rajat Garg, C.A. Revenue By Shri Subhra Jyoti Chakraborty, Cit-D.R. Date Of Hearing: 05.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 05.09.2024 Order Per Pradip Kumar Kedia, Am :

capital gains on the touchstone of section 50C of the Act. Consequently, while giving appeal effect, the capital gains computed

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

RUKMANI DEVI,MUZAFFARNAGAR vs. PR, CIT, DEHRADUN

In the result, both the appeals filed by assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedia N D Shri Amit Shukla(Through Video Conferencing)

section 50C is not applicable on the Capital Gain shown by the assessee appellant, as the Capital Gain offered by the assessee

PRABHA RANI,MUZAFFARNAGAR vs. PR, CIT, DEHRADUN

In the result, both the appeals filed by assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedia N D Shri Amit Shukla(Through Video Conferencing)

section 50C is not applicable on the Capital Gain shown by the assessee appellant, as the Capital Gain offered by the assessee

INDU BALA,DELHI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 60(1), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK (Judicial Member)

50C) 26,29,88,000 Sale consideration for capital gain purpose 26,29,88,000 LESS : Cost of acquisition (25.11.2014) As discussed in para 5 above 1,47,93,403 Short Term Capital Gain 24,81,94,597 7 11. AO rejected the whole claim of the assessee on long term capital gain and also rejected the cost of improvement

BHARAT BHUSHAN JAIN,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 54(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2016-17] Bharat Bhushan Jain, Vs Ito, 61, Central Road, Bhogal, Ward-54(2), New Delhi-110014. New Delhi. Pan-Aafpj7453F Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Pushkar Jain, Adv. Respondent By Shri Om Prakash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 10.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 27.05.2022

Section 50C is not applicable while computing capital gains on transfer of leasehold rights in land and buildings. 4. Mr. Kotangale