ARUN SHUNGLOO TRUST

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

ARUN SHUNGLOO TRUST

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

SH. VALMIK THAPAR,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Appeals are disposed of by this common order as indicated above

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice P.P. Bhatt & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Acit, 19, Kautilya Marg, Circle-53(1), New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Dcit, M/S. R. N. Khanna & Company, Ca, Circle-32(1), 14-15F, Shivam House, Connaught New Delhi Place, New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. Shri Valmik Thapar, Circle-53(1), 19, Kautilya Marg, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Salil Agarwal, Senior Advocate Along With Shri Shailesh Gupta, Shri Mahur Agarwal, Advocates Revenue By: Shri H. K. Choudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 11/06/2021 (Last Hearing) Date Of Pronouncement 11/06/2021. O R D E R Per Prashant Maharishi, A. M. 1. These Are Three Appeals For Two Assessment Years Pertaining To One Assessee, Mr. Valmik Thapar, A Resident, Individual [Assessee]. Assessee Filed Ita Number

54D is not imported here for the Section 54EC as both the sections read similarly on this score. He noted that the assessee has demonstrated that investment of ₹ 50 lakhs each in REC capital gain

SHRI VALMIK THAPAR,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Appeals are disposed of by this common order as indicated above

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice P.P. Bhatt & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Acit, 19, Kautilya Marg, Circle-53(1), New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Dcit, M/S. R. N. Khanna & Company, Ca, Circle-32(1), 14-15F, Shivam House, Connaught New Delhi Place, New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. Shri Valmik Thapar, Circle-53(1), 19, Kautilya Marg, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Salil Agarwal, Senior Advocate Along With Shri Shailesh Gupta, Shri Mahur Agarwal, Advocates Revenue By: Shri H. K. Choudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 11/06/2021 (Last Hearing) Date Of Pronouncement 11/06/2021. O R D E R Per Prashant Maharishi, A. M. 1. These Are Three Appeals For Two Assessment Years Pertaining To One Assessee, Mr. Valmik Thapar, A Resident, Individual [Assessee]. Assessee Filed Ita Number

54D is not imported here for the Section 54EC as both the sections read similarly on this score. He noted that the assessee has demonstrated that investment of ₹ 50 lakhs each in REC capital gain

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. VALMIK THAPAR, NEW DELHI

Appeals are disposed of by this common order as indicated above

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice P.P. Bhatt & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Acit, 19, Kautilya Marg, Circle-53(1), New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Dcit, M/S. R. N. Khanna & Company, Ca, Circle-32(1), 14-15F, Shivam House, Connaught New Delhi Place, New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. Shri Valmik Thapar, Circle-53(1), 19, Kautilya Marg, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Salil Agarwal, Senior Advocate Along With Shri Shailesh Gupta, Shri Mahur Agarwal, Advocates Revenue By: Shri H. K. Choudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 11/06/2021 (Last Hearing) Date Of Pronouncement 11/06/2021. O R D E R Per Prashant Maharishi, A. M. 1. These Are Three Appeals For Two Assessment Years Pertaining To One Assessee, Mr. Valmik Thapar, A Resident, Individual [Assessee]. Assessee Filed Ita Number

54D is not imported here for the Section 54EC as both the sections read similarly on this score. He noted that the assessee has demonstrated that investment of ₹ 50 lakhs each in REC capital gain

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S NALWA INVESTMENT LTD.

Appeals are allowed

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

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

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DEL vs. M/S MANSAROVAR INVESTMENTS LTD

Appeals are allowed

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

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

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DEL vs. M/S MANSAROVAR INVESTMENTS LTD

Appeals are allowed

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

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DEL vs. M/S ABHUINANDAN INVESTMENTS LT

Appeals are allowed

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

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DEL vs. M/S M/S JINDAL EQUIPMENT LEASI

Appeals are allowed

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

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. AJANTA TUBES LTD., DELHI

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishidcit, Vs. Ajanta Tubes Ltd, Circle-1(1), 292, Katra Peran, Tilak New Delhi Bazar, Delhi Pan: Aaaca0320J (Appellant) (Respondent)

capital gain on sale of land at Rs. 252520244/– and granted exemption under section 54D of INR 100000000/– and net taxable

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

SANJIV AHUJA,DELHI vs. ITO (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), DELHI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaasstt. Year 2012-13

capital gains arising on sale of old house, then it would be a hardship on him. Section 54 gives relief from such a hardship. Section 54 gives relief to a taxpayer who sells his residential house and from the sale proceeds he acquires another residential house. The controversy raised by different interpretations by certain 6.5 courts has been

M/S. ONKARESHWAR PROPERTIES (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

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

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

M/S. SHOURIE DUPLICATORS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2006-07 M/S. Shourie Duplicators Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- Pvt. Ltd., 16A, Palam Marg, 8(2), New Delhi F-1, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi Gir/Pan :Aaacs0541B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. K.V.S.R. Krishna, Advocate Respondent By Smt. Anima Barnwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 28.06.2016 Date Of Pronouncement 29.07.2016 Order Per O.P. Kant, A.M.: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 19/12/2011 Of Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-Xi, New Delhi For Assessment Year 2006-07. In The Impugned Order, Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) Has Sustained The Penalty Levied Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Act By The Assessing Officer. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Under: “1. The Ld. Cit(A) Ought To Hrave Deleted The Penalty Imposed By The Ao U/S 271(1)(C) Of Rs.28,46,000/- As There Is No Concealment Of Income Or Furnishing Of Inaccurate Particulars Of Income. 2. The Cit(A) Has Failed To Appreciate That The Appellant Has Disclosed The Complete Transaction In The Audited

gain with the remark that compensation received would be utilised for purchase of industrial land in specified area. According to the Assessing Officer, the transfer of the factory took place in April 2005, whereas the assessee did not acquire any alternate capital asset till the date of completion of the assessment proceeding and, therefore, the assessee was not eligibel

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. ONKARESHWAR PROPERTIES PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

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