SANGITA KSHETRY,NOIDA vs. ACIT,CIRCLE INT.TAX. 2(1)(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assesses in ITA 1876/Del/2023, ITA

Bench: Sh. C.N. Prasad & Sh. Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2016-17

section 50CA cannot be invoked for period before 01.04.2018 to determine the FMV for taking it as full value of consideration for the computation of capital gains u/s 48. Similar law was laid down in the decision pronounced by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of Principal Commissioner of Income-tax v. Minda SM Technocast

NINA KSHETRY,NOIDA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE INT.TAX. 2(1)(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assesses in ITA 1876/Del/2023, ITA

Bench: Sh. C.N. Prasad & Sh. Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2016-17

section 50CA cannot be invoked for period before 01.04.2018 to determine the FMV for taking it as full value of consideration for the computation of capital gains u/s 48. Similar law was laid down in the decision pronounced by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of Principal Commissioner of Income-tax v. Minda SM Technocast

HERSH VARDHAN KSHETRY,NOIDA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE INT. TAX. 2(1)(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assesses in ITA 1876/Del/2023, ITA

Bench: Sh. C.N. Prasad & Sh. Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2016-17

section 50CA cannot be invoked for period before 01.04.2018 to determine the FMV for taking it as full value of consideration for the computation of capital gains u/s 48. Similar law was laid down in the decision pronounced by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of Principal Commissioner of Income-tax v. Minda SM Technocast

ARUNA CHAUDHARY,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-26, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

548 as claimed by the appellant, is available only on the capital gains arising on of the sale of an agricultural land which is invested in another land which is used for agricultural purposes. The relevant portion of section

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. INFRASOFT LTD

capital gains in the other country. 2013:DHC:6018 ======================================================================= ITA 1034/2009 Page 71 of 174 48. The Supreme Court further referred to the commentary of Klaus Vogel that Double Taxation Convention establishes an independent mechanism to avoid double taxation through restriction of tax claims in areas where overlapping tax claims are expected, or at least theoretically possible. In other words

SHRI KISHAN,GURGAON vs. ITO, GURGAON

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Sh. B.R.R. Kumar & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Kishan S/O Late Jagmal Vs Income Tax Officer Singh, H. No.112, Near Shiv Ward- 4 (2) Mandir, Village & P.O. Gurgaon Nakhrola, Tehsil, Manesar Distt. Gurgaon – 122001 Pan No. Aaacp0165G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Sh. Manoj Kumar Vs Income Tax Officer S/O Late Sh. Jagdish Chander Ward-2 (4) Village P & O. Nakhrola Gurgaon Tehsil Manesar Gurgaon-122001 Pan No. Atvpm1063B (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 147/143(3) of the IT Act, 1961 (herein after referred as the “Act”) 2. Since common grievance is involved in both these appeals, therefore, they were heard together and are disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity. 3. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld CIT(A), the assessee’s are in appeal

MANOJ KUMAR,GURGAON vs. ITO, GURGAON

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Sh. B.R.R. Kumar & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Kishan S/O Late Jagmal Vs Income Tax Officer Singh, H. No.112, Near Shiv Ward- 4 (2) Mandir, Village & P.O. Gurgaon Nakhrola, Tehsil, Manesar Distt. Gurgaon – 122001 Pan No. Aaacp0165G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Sh. Manoj Kumar Vs Income Tax Officer S/O Late Sh. Jagdish Chander Ward-2 (4) Village P & O. Nakhrola Gurgaon Tehsil Manesar Gurgaon-122001 Pan No. Atvpm1063B (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 147/143(3) of the IT Act, 1961 (herein after referred as the “Act”) 2. Since common grievance is involved in both these appeals, therefore, they were heard together and are disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity. 3. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld CIT(A), the assessee’s are in appeal

MEENU ARYA,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO,WARD-3(4), HAPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri C.M. Gargmeenu Arya, Vs. Ito, Ch. No. 206-207, Ansal Satyam Ward-3(4), Rdc, Rajnagar, Ghaziabad Hapur (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Abcpa7903P

capital gain of Rs. 18,03,148/- made by Id. AO on sale of undisputedly rural agricultural land u/s 2(14) of Act supported with Nagar Palika Parishad, revenue records etc., thus taxing an income beyond the purview of section 45 of Act. 3. Because learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is inherently wrong in making incorrect remark on receipt

RAGHUVIR SINGH ,DELHI vs. PR. CIT, FARIDABAD

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms Astha Chandra

gain (ii) capital gain/loss on sale of property and (iii) investment in immovable property. 11. Notice u/s 142(1) of the Act was issued on 04.07.2019 with the following query: “1. Please give a brief note indicating the nature of financial activities of the assessee alongwith copies of computation statement, complete copies of the bank accounts with narration thereof, form

UFLEX LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT,, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri G.S Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Vimal Kumar

gain and did not adjudicate alternate grounds. Learned CIT(A) erred in admitting additional grounds despite reference to case law could not adjudicate. Learned CIT(A) erred in allowing 50% of the foreign travel expenses. 11. From examination of record in the light of aforesaid rival contention regarding question No. 1 qua disallowances of sales tax subsidy under the Uttar

UFLEX LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT,, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri G.S Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Vimal Kumar

gain and did not adjudicate alternate grounds. Learned CIT(A) erred in admitting additional grounds despite reference to case law could not adjudicate. Learned CIT(A) erred in allowing 50% of the foreign travel expenses. 11. From examination of record in the light of aforesaid rival contention regarding question No. 1 qua disallowances of sales tax subsidy under the Uttar

UFLEX LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT,, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri G.S Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Vimal Kumar

gain and did not adjudicate alternate grounds. Learned CIT(A) erred in admitting additional grounds despite reference to case law could not adjudicate. Learned CIT(A) erred in allowing 50% of the foreign travel expenses. 11. From examination of record in the light of aforesaid rival contention regarding question No. 1 qua disallowances of sales tax subsidy under the Uttar

UFLEX LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT,, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri G.S Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Vimal Kumar

gain and did not adjudicate alternate grounds. Learned CIT(A) erred in admitting additional grounds despite reference to case law could not adjudicate. Learned CIT(A) erred in allowing 50% of the foreign travel expenses. 11. From examination of record in the light of aforesaid rival contention regarding question No. 1 qua disallowances of sales tax subsidy under the Uttar

UFLEX LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT,, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri G.S Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Vimal Kumar

gain and did not adjudicate alternate grounds. Learned CIT(A) erred in admitting additional grounds despite reference to case law could not adjudicate. Learned CIT(A) erred in allowing 50% of the foreign travel expenses. 11. From examination of record in the light of aforesaid rival contention regarding question No. 1 qua disallowances of sales tax subsidy under the Uttar

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. ULFEX LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri G.S Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Vimal Kumar

gain and did not adjudicate alternate grounds. Learned CIT(A) erred in admitting additional grounds despite reference to case law could not adjudicate. Learned CIT(A) erred in allowing 50% of the foreign travel expenses. 11. From examination of record in the light of aforesaid rival contention regarding question No. 1 qua disallowances of sales tax subsidy under the Uttar

UFLEX LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT,, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri G.S Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Vimal Kumar

gain and did not adjudicate alternate grounds. Learned CIT(A) erred in admitting additional grounds despite reference to case law could not adjudicate. Learned CIT(A) erred in allowing 50% of the foreign travel expenses. 11. From examination of record in the light of aforesaid rival contention regarding question No. 1 qua disallowances of sales tax subsidy under the Uttar

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. ULFEX LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri G.S Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Vimal Kumar

gain and did not adjudicate alternate grounds. Learned CIT(A) erred in admitting additional grounds despite reference to case law could not adjudicate. Learned CIT(A) erred in allowing 50% of the foreign travel expenses. 11. From examination of record in the light of aforesaid rival contention regarding question No. 1 qua disallowances of sales tax subsidy under the Uttar

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. ULFEX LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri G.S Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Vimal Kumar

gain and did not adjudicate alternate grounds. Learned CIT(A) erred in admitting additional grounds despite reference to case law could not adjudicate. Learned CIT(A) erred in allowing 50% of the foreign travel expenses. 11. From examination of record in the light of aforesaid rival contention regarding question No. 1 qua disallowances of sales tax subsidy under the Uttar