ARUN DWIVEDI,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-9(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 45 of the Act during the relevant period is\nreproduced as under:-\nCapital gains.\n8945. [(1)] Any profits or gains arising from the transfer of a capital\nasset effected in the previous year shall, save as otherwise provided in\nsections 2[***] [54, 54B, 4[***] 95[%[54D

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]

Capital Gain (LTCG) at Rs.1,02,91,568/- as against Rs.4,88,868/- offered by the assessee. The AO noted that this case was selected for scrutiny through CASS under ‘limited scrutiny’ to examine the following issue:- (i) Large deduction claim u/s 54B, 54C, 54D, 54G, 54GA (schedule CG of ITR) 3.1. The AO noted that during the year under

KUSUM SAHGAL,GURUGRAM vs. ACIT,CIRCLE-19(2), DELHI

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

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2016-17 Kusum Sahgal, Through Lr Shri Vs. Acit, Circle-19(2), Viney Sagar Sahgal, New Delhi Mg-2002, The Magnolias, Golf Course Road Dlf Phase-V, Gurugram, 122 002 Haryana Pan :Aatps3766J (Appellant) (Respondent)

capital gains (Schedule CG of ITR); (ii) Large deduction claimed u/s 54B,54C,54D,54G, 54GA (Schedule CG of ITR) and (iii) Large balance in foreign bank account (Schedule FA of ITR). Notice under Section

KAMLESH KHANNA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-40(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla

capital gains and income from other sources. The assessee e-filed his return of income for the A.Y under consideration declaring income of Rs. 24,51,630/- on 30.03.2016 which was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, this case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS to examine (i) Large investment in property as compared to total income

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

gains on compulsory acquisition of land and building is charged to tax. Section 54D(1) of the act opens with: "Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), where the capital

SUBRAMANIAN SWAMINATHAN,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRCLE-3(1)(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

capital gains scheme. 3. Because without prejudice to the above, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts by disallowing the expenses to the tune of Rs. 2,83,473/- incurred in lieu of purchase of the new residential unit, more so, when all evidence were duly submitted before the Authorities below. 3.1.Because the registration expenses were much

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1 vs. M/S ANSAL PROPERTIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED

gains arising from the transfer of a capital asset effected in the previous year shall, save as otherwise provided in sections 54, 54B, 54D

M R APPARELS P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. PRCIT-6, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

Section 45(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, provides that' any profit or gains arising from the transfer of a capital asset effected in the previous year shall, save as provided in /sections 54, 54B, 54D

ACIT, CIRCLE-56(1), NEW DELHI vs. SANDEEP TANEJA, DELHI

Bench: Dr. B.R.R.Kumar & Sh.Anubhav Sharmaacit, Vs. Shri Sandeep Taneja, Circle- 56(1), C-228, Surajmal Vihar New Delhi Delhi-110092 Pan – Aadpt6410G

54D, 54G, 54GA” 2.3 The Ld. Assessing Officer had passed the assessment order u/s 143(3) on 24.12.2017, thereby determining the total income of the assessee at Rs. 6,82,31,550/- as under :- Particulars Amount (Rs.) Total Income as per return 1,17,42,240/- Disallowance of claim made in respect of long term capital gains

RAGHUVIR SINGH ,DELHI vs. PR. CIT, FARIDABAD

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

section 263 of the Act, the PCIT, Faridabad served a notice and after receiving the reply to the queries raised by the PCIT, directed the Assessing Officer to examine issue of taxation of capital gains arising from sale of land and availing exemption u/s 54B of the Act on purchase of land. 7. The Assessing Officer was further directed

VINOD ANAND,FARIDABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-II,, FARIDABAD

The Appeal is dismissed ex parte

Bench: Dr. B.R.R.Kumar & Sh. Anubhav Sharmash. Vinod Anand Vs. Dcit, House No. 2288, Circle-Ii, Sector-9, Faridabad Faridabad, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, “the Act”, henceforth) on 30.06.2015 declaring total income of Rs. 70,72,580/-. Subsequently, the case was selected for limited scrutiny under ‘CASS’ and the same was assessed at an income of Rs. 98,61,560/- making an addition of Rs. 27,88,975/- as Long Term Capital Gain

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) vs. AIPECCS SOCIETY

Capital gains" and claims that the loss or any part thereof should be carried forward under sub-section (1) of section 72, or sub-section (2) of section 73, or sub-section (1) [or sub-section (3)] of section 74, [or sub- section (3) of section 74A], he may furnish, within the time allowed under sub-section (1), a return

SIMMI BATRA,NEW DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-32(5), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

54D, 54G, 54GA of Simmi Batra vs. ITO the Act”. Statutory notices were issued and served upon the assessee. The AO observed that during the year under appeal assessee received total sum of Rs.1,41,86,718/- towards 6.25% share jointly hold with her minor son Master Kashish Batra in the property situated at A-10, MCIE, Mathura Road

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. ATUL BANSAL, NEW DELHI

In the result, grounds raised by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanatul Bansal, Vs. Acit, Central Circle 16 Farm No. 22, The Green Rajokri Delhi. New Delhi – 110 038. (Pan: Agcpb1274F) Acit, Central Circle 16, Vs, Atul Bansal Delhi Farm No. 22, The Green Rajokri New Delhi – 110 038. (Pan: Agcpb1274F) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Sh. Jitender Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 18.11.2025 Date Of Order : 06.02.2026 O R D E R

54D, 54G, 54GA and Large interest expenses relatable to exempt investment u/s 14A.” 6. Accordingly notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) were issued and served on the assessee. In response Ld. AR of the assessee submitted the relevant information as caller for. After considering the submissions made by the AR of the assessee, the Assessing Officer observed that

SH. ATUL BANSAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, grounds raised by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanatul Bansal, Vs. Acit, Central Circle 16 Farm No. 22, The Green Rajokri Delhi. New Delhi – 110 038. (Pan: Agcpb1274F) Acit, Central Circle 16, Vs, Atul Bansal Delhi Farm No. 22, The Green Rajokri New Delhi – 110 038. (Pan: Agcpb1274F) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Sh. Jitender Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 18.11.2025 Date Of Order : 06.02.2026 O R D E R

54D, 54G, 54GA and Large interest expenses relatable to exempt investment u/s 14A.” 6. Accordingly notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) were issued and served on the assessee. In response Ld. AR of the assessee submitted the relevant information as caller for. After considering the submissions made by the AR of the assessee, the Assessing Officer observed that

MUMTAZ NASEEM SYED,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 63(3), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

section 54 of the income tax act, 1961 solely on the ground that the new property in which the amount of capital gain has been invested is in joint name of the assessee and her son since the 3 ITA. 3195/Del/2019 Mrs. Mumtaz Naseem Syed, ND payments made out of the earnings / contribution of her son Mr. Khalid Naseem