DR. PRANNOY ROY,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

section 143 (1) of the Act at the returned income. 6. Subsequently, notice u/s 148 of The Income Tax Act [the Act] was issued on 25/7/2011. Reasons recorded shows that reopening is on perusal of return of income based on information received per letter dated 6/6/2011 from The Deputy Director of Income Tax (Investigation) Unit –II, New Delhi [DDIT] holding

SMT. RADHIKA ROY,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

section 143 (1) of the Act at the returned income. 6. Subsequently, notice u/s 148 of The Income Tax Act [the Act] was issued on 25/7/2011. Reasons recorded shows that reopening is on perusal of return of income based on information received per letter dated 6/6/2011 from The Deputy Director of Income Tax (Investigation) Unit –II, New Delhi [DDIT] holding

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. MRS. RADHIKA ROY, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

section 143 (1) of the Act at the returned income. 6. Subsequently, notice u/s 148 of The Income Tax Act [the Act] was issued on 25/7/2011. Reasons recorded shows that reopening is on perusal of return of income based on information received per letter dated 6/6/2011 from The Deputy Director of Income Tax (Investigation) Unit –II, New Delhi [DDIT] holding

DR. PRANNOY ROY,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

section 143 (1) of the Act at the returned income. 6. Subsequently, notice u/s 148 of The Income Tax Act [the Act] was issued on 25/7/2011. Reasons recorded shows that reopening is on perusal of return of income based on information received per letter dated 6/6/2011 from The Deputy Director of Income Tax (Investigation) Unit –II, New Delhi [DDIT] holding

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. DR. PRANNOY ROY, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

section 143 (1) of the Act at the returned income. 6. Subsequently, notice u/s 148 of The Income Tax Act [the Act] was issued on 25/7/2011. Reasons recorded shows that reopening is on perusal of return of income based on information received per letter dated 6/6/2011 from The Deputy Director of Income Tax (Investigation) Unit –II, New Delhi [DDIT] holding

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. ECE INDUSTRIES LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.SIKRI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT

54, 54B, 54D, 54E, 54EA, 54EB, 54F, 54G and 54H be chargeable to income-tax under the head "Capital gains", and shall be deemed to be the income of the previous year in which the transfer took place. (1A) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), where any person receives at any time during any previous year any money

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. ECE Industries Limited

54, 54B, 54D, 54E, 54EA, 54EB, 54F, 54G and 54H be chargeable to income-tax under the head "Capital gains", and shall be deemed to be the income of the previous year in which the transfer took place. (1A) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), where any person receives at any time during any previous year any money

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S PURAN ASSOCIATES PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant

2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) erred in restricting the addition made u/s. 14A from Rs. 57.64 lacs to Rs. 32.14 lacs. Ld. CIT (A) erred in giving relief to the assessee on the fact that the assessee has earned interest income and therefore he is entitled

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. PURAN ASSOCIATES PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant

2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) erred in restricting the addition made u/s. 14A from Rs. 57.64 lacs to Rs. 32.14 lacs. Ld. CIT (A) erred in giving relief to the assessee on the fact that the assessee has earned interest income and therefore he is entitled

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. PURAN ASSOCIATES PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant

2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) erred in restricting the addition made u/s. 14A from Rs. 57.64 lacs to Rs. 32.14 lacs. Ld. CIT (A) erred in giving relief to the assessee on the fact that the assessee has earned interest income and therefore he is entitled

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4 vs. GE MONEY FINANCIAL SERVICES PVT. LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

54-56 X Petitioner bound by Statutory Provisions 57-58 XI Delay on part of the Respondents does not entitle the Petitioner for any Relief in the absence of any Rights in its favour 59-65 XII Precautionary Principle 66-67 XIII Judgments of Rajasthan High Court Relied Upon by Petitioner, 68.1-69 Digitally Signed By:CHARU CHAUDHARY Signing Date

SMT. HARMINDER KAUR,,NEW DELHI vs. ITO,, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant[Through Video Conferencing]

54(2) of the Act, wherein it has been held that sub- section(4) 15 ITA No. 2656/Del./2017 of Section 139 of the Act is in fact a proviso to Section 139(1) of the Act. Therefore, since the assessee has invested the sale proceeds in a residential house within the extended period of limitation, the capital gain

MILAN SAINI,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 2 , GURGAON

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 Milan Saini, Vs. Dcit, 37, Centrum Plaza, Dlf Golf Circle-2. Course Road, Sector 53, Gurgaon Gurgaon (Haryana) Pan: Braps1366P (Appellant) (Respondent)

gains and was in effect a capital receipt. The relevant extracts of the judgement are reproduced hereunder: "7. We are, therefore, left with the question as to whether the right to claim damages in the instant case is a 'property of any kind and thus, a 'capital asset' under section 2(14)of the Act. The further question

CIT vs. M/S TELETUBE ELECTRONICS LTD

The appeal of the Assessee is allowed

gain was charged with reference to the salami. Here again, no dispute was raised that the land itself constituted a capital asset. 49. In CIT v. Narang Diary (supra), the issue concerned the interpretation of the words "otherwise transferred" in Section 33 of the Act. The context was the provision of rebate in respect of a new machinery and plant

TELETUBE ELECTRONICS LTD

The appeal of the Assessee is allowed

gain was charged with reference to the salami. Here again, no dispute was raised that the land itself constituted a capital asset. 49. In CIT v. Narang Diary (supra), the issue concerned the interpretation of the words "otherwise transferred" in Section 33 of the Act. The context was the provision of rebate in respect of a new machinery and plant

TELETUBE ELECTRONICS LTD

The appeal of the Assessee is allowed

gain was charged with reference to the salami. Here again, no dispute was raised that the land itself constituted a capital asset. 49. In CIT v. Narang Diary (supra), the issue concerned the interpretation of the words "otherwise transferred" in Section 33 of the Act. The context was the provision of rebate in respect of a new machinery and plant

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-IV vs. M/S. I. K. INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD

2,83,99,571 6. It may be seen from the computation that the assessee computed the capital gains on the sale of land as long term capital gains and having invested the gains in REC Bonds which were eligible bonds, claimed the entire long term capital gains as exempt under Section 54

GOPAL SARAN DARBARI,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahu

capital gain - Subsequently, in May, 1996, he purchased residential property - Assessing Officer rejected assessee's claim of exemption under section 54 on ground that assessee had not complied with provisions of section 54(2