KARTAR SINGH,ROHTAK vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 42(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 3268/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Kartar Singh, Vs Acit, C/O S.K. Bansal, Ca, Circle-42(1), 101, First Floor, Kochar Market, New Delhi-11 Jhajjar Road, Opp. Khanu Mandi, Rohtak, Haryana-12001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Cskps5940K Assessee By : None Revenue By : Sh. Amit Katoch, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 19.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 05.09.2023 Order Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar:

gain on an asset being land acquired in a mode specified u/s 49(1) of I.T. Act in which case cost of acquisition in the hands of last previous owner is to be taken as per Explanation to section 49(1). But neither the last previous owner nor the date of acquisition in the hands of last previous owner

YOGRAJ,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 47(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

capital gains. Further, Section 55A mandates that to ascertain the fair market value of a capital asset for computation of capital

RAJO DEVI,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 32(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Gargassessment Year 2010-11 Smt. Rajo Devi, The Income Tax Officer, W/O. Reshram, Ward-32(1), Room No.1804, 76, Asola Village, Vs. Fatehpur Beri, 11Th Floor, E-2 Block, Civic New Delhi – 110 074. Centre, New Delhi–110 001. Pan Atwpr3396M (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Ca & Shri Pawan Kumar, Ca For Revenue : Shri Mithalesh Kr. Pandey, Sr. Dr

section 55A of the I.T. Act, 1961, the Valuation Officer in his valuation report dated 17.01.2018 stated that the land in question is agricultural land as on 18.03.2010 and the land in question is valued at Rs.89,35,574/-. Copy of the Valuation Report of the Valuation Officer dated 17.01.2018 is placed on record. The Learned Counsel for the Assessee

PRAMILA GUPTA ,GURUGRAM vs. CIT(A)-42, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar

section 154 of the Act by taking FMV of the property C-44 South Extn., Part-II, New Delhi as on 01/04/1981 at Rs 17,50,850/- (as assessed by the VO u/s 55A of the Act) against returned cost of Rs 28,97,254/- in order to derive the figure for capital gain

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)

capital gain by giving the appellant benefit of cost of construction for Rs.1,46,000/- as on 07.08.2006 . Ground Nos. 3,4,6 and 6 of the appellant are Partly Allowed.” 4. The assessee has come in appeal raising following grounds :- “1) That the impugned order passed u/s 250 of the Income

SATYA DHARMA HOTELS PVT LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 22(4), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Satya Dharma Hotels Pvt. Ltd., Ito, Ward-22(4), New Delhi 110002 177, 1St Floor, Vigyan Vihar, New Delhi 110092 Vs. Pan Aahcs 0289 H (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri P.C Yadav, Adv. Shri Shivam Garg, Ca Shri Raghav Sharma, Ca Revenue For : Shri Vipul Kashyap, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 18.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 09.06.2023 Order Per Chandra Mohan Garg, J.M. This Appeal Has Been Filed Against The Order Of Cit(A)-8, New Delhi Dated 01.03.2019 For Ay 2015-16. 2. The Grounds Of Assessee Are As Follows:- 1. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Order Passed By Cit (A)-08, New Delhi Is Contrary To The Facts & Bad In Law. 2. I) I Am Not Agreeing With The Computation Of Capital Gain Made By Assessing Officer. Ii) During The Assessment, Sec 55A Of Income Tax Act Has Not Been Considered By Assessing Officer For Valuation Of The Land As Requested By Us. Taking Rate Of Registering Authority & Not Consider The Fair Market Value Which Is Very Low. Iii)The Ld. Ao Has Not Considered The Addition Made During The Year & Added Back In The Income Of The Assessee Company. 4. Demand Calculated By A.O. Is Prejudicial To The Company And, If Appeal Is Not Allowed To Be Proceeded It Amounting To Against The Law.

section 55A of Income Tax Act. 6. The disallowance of addition in land of Rs. 2935000 is not tenable and not justified. 7. I am genuine in the eye of law and followed valid procedure for computation of capital gain

OMPAL,MEERUT vs. ITO WARD - 2(1), M

In the result ground no. 2 of the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year: 2009-10

gains on sale of capital assets, assessee is granted deduction of cost of acquisition of that capital assets from the sale consideration. According to section 55 of the Income tax Act cost of acquisition where the capital asset became the property of the assessee before the 1st day of April,1981, means the cost of acquisition of the asset

JASWIN KAUR SETHI ,GURGAON vs. DCIT,INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, GURGAON

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraassessment Year: 2020-21 Jaswin Kaur Sethi, Vs Dcit, 218, Regency Park, International Taxation, Dlf Phase Gurgaon. Gurgaon, Haryana – 122 009. Pan: Enmps7327R

capital gain which was challenged by the assessee before the DRP and giving relief to the assessee, the DRP had directed the AO to recompute the said property on the basis of residential land conversion rates of Delhi Development Authority (DDA) as notified by the Ministry of Urban Development, Government of India. Accordingly, the final assessment order 2 dated

SONIA GOEL vs. I.T.O, WARD 21(1), NEW DELHI

In the resultant proceedings, the reopening of the assessment

capital gains at Rs.48,21,216/- had escaped assessment. This was followed by notices being issued to the Assessee under Section 143(2) and 142 (1) of the Act on 21st October, 2013. The Assessee, on 7th February 2014, filed objections to the reopening of the assessment. A careful perusal of these objections shows that the Assessee

PREM LATA GUPTA ,DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE , KARNAL

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

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18 Smt. Prem Lata Gupta, Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of C-5/2A, Opp Cc Colony, Income Tax, Rana Pratap Bagh, North Delhi Central Circle Pin: 1100 07 Karnal. Pan: Aadpl3023F (Appellant) (Respondent)

Capital Gain’. Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 27.05.2022 partially confirmed the addition of Rs.28,64,067/- by restricting the index cost of construction in the financial year 1997-98. 8. The appellant/assessee, a lady is not engaged in any business. Valuation Report of the property is at page nos. 51 to 57 of the paper books. The Valuer inspected

INCOME TAX OFFICER vs. DG HOUSING PROJECTS LTD

capital gains. In the absence of any business, the expenses have also been incorrectly allowed. Since the assessee company was deriving income from property only, no separate deduction, except the deduction u/s 24, was admissible in respect of the expenses incurred by the assessee company for the maintenance of 2012:DHC:1499-DB ITA 179/2011 Page 4 of 19 property

MAMTA GUPTA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-68(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2016-17] Mamta Gupta, Vs Acit, 686, Chowkbara Tooti, Sadar Bazaar, Circle-68(1), New Delhi-110006. New Delhi. Pan-Aanpg8214H Appellant Respondent Appellant By None Respondent By Shri Om Prakash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 12.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 31.03.2022

section 50C of the Act. 3. That the authorities below are erred under the law while accepting the DVO report prepared on the basis of circle rate and Govt./CBDT circulars ignoring comparable sales instances as furnished by the appellant. 4. That any other grounds of appeal may be added/deleted or amended at the time of hearing